document resume - ericfinal report project no. 760-541-70-1007-06 grant no. oec-3-6-062728-2129...
TRANSCRIPT
ED 033 645
AUTHOFTITLE
INSTITUTIONSpcns Agency
Bureau NoPub DateContractNote
EDFS PriceDescriptors
Identifiers
Abstract
DOCUMENT RESUME
HE 001 009
Coker, David I.Diversty cf Intellective andNon-Intellective Characteristics BetweenPersisting and Non-Persisting Studentsamcng Campuses.Wisconsin State Univ., Stevens Point.Office of Education (DHEW), Washington,r. C. Bureau of Research.ER-6-2728Apr 68OEC-3-6-062728-2129123p.
EDRS Price MF-$0.50 HC-$6.25Academic Achievement, *DropoutCharacteristics, Dropouts, *HigherEducation, *Persistence, StateUniversities, *Student Characteristics,Vocational Interests, *Withdrawal*Wisconsin
This study attempted to discover thenature and extent of the diversity of characteristics ofpersisting and non-persisting students both within andamong 5 state universities in Wisconsin. The sampleconsisted of all full-time freshmen during 1965-66 at theinstitutions (N=7010). Students who either withdrew duringthe year or did not return for the 1966-67 year(non-persisting students), were divided into those whowithdrew for academic reasons and those who withdrew fornon-academic reasons. The results indicated that there weresignificant differences between both male and femalepersisting and non-persisting students (all) on the basisof planned educational major, vocational choice, vocationalrole preference, educational aspirations, number of changesin academic major, place cf college residence, and size ofhigh school graduating class. Previous high schoolachievement and ACT scores tended to be discriminatevariables between male and female and among the persisting,non-persisting (academic) , and non-persisting (nonacademic) students both within and among campuses. Collegeachievement in terms of GPA, credits attempted, and creditsearned, appeared tc differentiate both male and femalepersisting and non-persisting students (all) both withinand among campuses. Continued research is necessary ifinstitutions hope to decrease attrition rate. (DS)
El 3fri9
OE-ER
FINAL REPORTProject No. 760-541-70-1007-06Grant No. OEC-3-6-062728-2129
sEsr COPY AVAILABLE
DIVERSITY OF INTELLECTIVE AND NON-INTELLECTIVE CHARACTERISTICSBETWEEN PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS
AMONG CAMPUSES
April 1968
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE
OFFICE OF EDUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE
PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS
STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION
POSITION OR POLICY.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Office of EducationBureau of Research
FINAL REPORT
Project No. 760-541-70-1007-06Grant No. OEC-3-6-062728-2129
DIVERSITY OF INTELLECTIVE AND NON-INTELLECTIVE CHARACTERISTICSBETWEEN PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS
AMONG CAMPUSES
Dr. David L. CokerWisconsin State UniversityStevens Point, Wisconsin 5zi1g1
April 1968
The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a grantwith the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Educa-tion, and Welfare. Contractors undertaking such projects underGovernment sponsorship are encouraged to express freely theirprofessional judgment in the conduct of the project. Points cf
view or opinions stated do not, therefore, necessarily repre-sent official Office of Education position or policy.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Office of EducationBureau of Research
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
I. PREFACE 1
II. INTRODUCTION 2
Purpose of the Study 5Statement of the Problem 5Research Hypotheses 6
Definition of Terms 8
Delimitation of the Problem 9Limitations of the Problem 9
III. METHODOLOGY 10
Selection of Sample 10
Collection of the Data 10
Scoring of the Data 11
Coding of the Data 11
Statistical Treatment of the Data 12
IV. RESULTS 13
Analysis of Scholastic Aptitude 13
Analysis of High School Achievement 53Analysis of College Achievement 65
Analysis of Non-Intellective Characteristics 80
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . 100
Diversity Among Persisting and Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of Scholastic Aptitude . 100
Diversity Among Persisting and Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of High School Achieve-ment .. 103
Diversity Among Persisting and Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of College Achievement . 105
Diversity Among Persisting and Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of Non-IntellectiveCharacteristics 106
VI. REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 112
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Studentson All Campuses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT
Scales . , o OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 14
2 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on All Cam-puses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT - English
Scale
3 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on All Cam-puses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT-MathematicsScale
4 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on All Cam-puses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT-SocialScience Scale
15
16
17
5 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on All Cam-puses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT-NaturalScience Scale . 17
6 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on All Cam-puses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT-CompositeScale 18
7 Differences Between Male and Female Persisting Studentson the Basis of ACT Scales 19
8 Differences Between Male and Female Academic Non-PersistingStudents on the Basis of the ACT Scales 20
9 Differences Between Male and Female Non-Academic Non -Persisting Students on the Basis of the ACT Scales 21
10 Differences Among Female Persisting Students Among Campuseson the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT Scales 22
11 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of the Mean Score on the ACT-English Scale 23
12 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of the Mean Score on the ACT-Mathematics Scale 25
iii
Table Page
13 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of the Mean Score on the ACT-Social Science Scale 26
14 Differences Among Male Persisting Students Among Campuseson the Baas of Mean Scores on the ACT Scales 27
15 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Male Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of Mean Scores on the ACT-English Scale 28
16 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Male Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of Mean Scores on the ACT-Mathematics Scale . . 30
17 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Male Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of Mean Scores on the ACT- Social Science Scale . . . 31
18 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Male Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of Mean Scores on the ACT-Natural Science Scale . 32
19 Differences Among Persisting Students Among Campuses onthe Basis of Mean Score for the ACT-Composite Scale . . 33
20 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Persisting Students Among Campuses on the Basisof Mean. Score for the ACT-Composite Scale . . . . . . . 34
21 Differences Among Female Academic Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACTScales 35
22 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-puses on the Basis of. Mean Scores for the ACT - English
Scale
23 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-puses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACT-SocialScience Scale
36
37
2' Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-puses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACT-NaturalScience Scale 39
iv
Table Page
25 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-
puses on the Basis of Mean Sccres for the ACT-Composite
Scale 40
26 Differences Among Male Academic Non-Persisting Students
Among Campuses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACT
Scales . OOOOO OOOOOOOO 41
27 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Male Academic Non - Persisting Students Among Cam-
puses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACT-Mathematics
Scale 42
28 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Male Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-
puses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACT-Social
Science Scale 43
29 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Male Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-
puses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACT-Natural
Science Scale 45
30 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Male Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-
puses on the Basis of Mean Scores for the ACT-Composite
Scale
31 Differences Among Female Non-Academic Non-Persisting Stu-
dents Among Campuses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the
English, Mathematics, and Natural Science Scales of the
ACT , OOOOOOOO e OOOOOOOO
46
47
32 Differences Among Male Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students
Among Campuses on the Basis of Mean Snores for the Eng.-
lish, Mathematics, and Natural Science Scales of the ACT . 47
33 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Male Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students Among
Campuses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the ACT-English
Scale 48
34 Differences Among Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students
Among Campuses on the Basis of Mean Scores on the Social
Science and Composite Scales of the ACT 49
35 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Campuses
on the Basis of Mean Score on the ACT-Social Science
Scale 50
Table Page
36 Duncan's New Mailtiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Campuses
on the Basis of Mean Score on the ACT-Composite Scale 52
37 Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students
for AU. Campuses on the Basis of Mean Grade Point
Achieved in High School 53
38 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on All Cam-
puses on the Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved in High
School . . .54
39 Differences Between Male and Female Persisting Students
on All Campuses on the Basis of Average Grade Achieved
in High School 55
40 Differences Between Male and Female Academic Non-Persisting
Students on All Campuses on the Basis of Average Grade
Achieved in High School 55
41 Differences Between Male and Female Non-Academic Non-
Persisting Students on All Campuses on the Basis of
Average Grade Achieved in High School 55
42 Differences Among Female Persisting Students Among Campuses
on the Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved in High School . 56
43 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Female Persisting Students Among Campuses on the
Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved in High School . . . . 57
44 Differences Among Male Persisting Students Among Campuses
on the Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved in High School . 58
45 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Male Persisting Students Among Campuses on the
Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved in High School . . . 59
46 Differences Among Female Academic Non-Persisting Students
Among Campuses on the Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved
in High School 58
47 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-
puses on the Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved in High
School 60
48 Differences Among Male Academic Non-Persisting Students
Among Campuses on the Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved
in High School 61
vi
Table Page
49 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Male Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-
puses on the Basis of. Mean Grade Point Achieved in High
School 62
50 Differences Among Female Non-Academic Non-Persisting Stu-
dents Among Campuses on the Basis of the Mean Grade
Point Achieved in High School 63
51 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Female Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students Among
Campuses on the Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved in
High School . . . 0 ... ... ........... 64
52 Differences Among Male Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students
Among Campuses on the Basis of Mean Grade Point Achieved
in High School 65
53 Differences Among Male Persisting Students Among Campuses
on the Basis of Credits Earned, Credits Attempted, and
Grade Points Achieved .66
54 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Male Persisting Students Among Campuses on the
Basis of Credits Earned ...... ...... 67
55 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Male Persisting Students Among Campuses on the
Basis of Credits Attempted . .68
56 Differences Among Female Persisting Students Among Campuses
on the Basis of Credits Earned, Credits Attempted, and
Grade Points Achieved
57 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Persisting Students Among Campuses on the
Basis of Credits Earned
68
69
58 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the Differences
Among Female Persisting Students Among Campuses on the
Basis of Credits Attempted 70
59 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Persisting Students Among Campuses on theBasis of Grade Points Achieved 71
60 Differences Among Male Academic Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of Credits Earned, CreditsAttempted, and. Grade Points Achieved 72
vii
Table Page
61 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Male Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Campuseson the Basis of Credits Earned 72
62 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Male Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Campuses
on the Basis of Credits Attempted 73
63 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Male Academic Non-Persisting Students Among .Campuses
on the Basis of Grade Points Achieved 74
64 Differences Among Female Academic Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of Credits Earned, CreditsAttempted, and Grade Points Achieved 75
65 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-puses on the Basis of Credits Earned 76
66 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-puses on the Basis of Credits Attempted 77
67 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Cam-puses on the Basis of Grade Points Achieved 78
68 Differences Among Male Non-Academic Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of Credits Earned, CreditsAttempted, and Grade Points Achieved 79
69 Differences Among Female Non-Academic Non-Persisting Stu-dents Among Campuses on the Basis of Credits Earned,Credits Attempted, and Grade Points Achieved . ... . . 79
70 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to the DifferencesAmong Female Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students AmongCampuses on the Basis of Grade Points Achieved . 80
71 Differences Between Male and Female Students From All
Campuses on the Basis of Persistence 81
72 Differences Among Male Persisting and Non-Persisting Stu-dents on All Campuses on the Basis of Educational Major 82
73 Differences Among Female Persisting and Non-PersistingStudents on All Campuses on the Basis of EducationalMajor 84
viii
TablePage
74 Differences Among Male Persisting and Non-Persisting Stu-
dents on All Campuses on the Basis of Vocational Choice . . 86
75 Differences Among Female Persisting and Non-Persisting
Students on All Campuses on the Basis of Vocational
Choice . ...... . . . 87
76 Differences Among Male Persisting and Non -Persisting Stu-
dents on All Campuses on the Basis of Vocational Role
Preferences89
77 Differences Among Female Persisting and Non-Persisting Stu-
dents on All Campuses on the Basis of Vocational Role
Preferences90
78 Differences Among Male Persisting and Non-Persisting Stu-
dents on All Campuses on the Basis of Educational Plans . 92
79 Differences Among Female Persisting and Non-Persisting
Students on All Campuses on the Basis of Educational
Plans9'
80 Differences Among Female Persisting and Non-Persisting
Students on the Basis of Change of Academic Major . . . . 95
81 Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students
on the Basis of College Residence 97
82 Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students
on the Basis of Size of High School Graduating Class . . . 99
ix
PREFACE
The Consortium on Research Development in Wisconsin involvesfive state universities which are located at Stevens Point, Whitewater,LaCrosse, Menomonie. and River Falls. A purpose of the Consortium is
to assist in the promotion of inter- and intra-institutional researchwithin and among the faculty of these campuses on a cooperative basis.
This report represents the initial research project supportedby the Consortium in conjunction with the U. S. Office of Education,
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
The investigator would like to thank the many students, faculty,
and administrators on the five Wisconsin State University campuses whose
assistance and cooperation made the completion of this investigation
possible.
The investigator wishes to especially- thank Mr. Donald Benz,
Wisconsin State University-Stavens Point, Mr. William Webster, Wisconsin
State Dhivrsity-River Falls, Mr. Sam Wood, Stout State University-
Menomonie, Mr. John Prentice, Wisconsin State University-Whitewater, and
Mr. John Jenks, Wisconsin State University-LaCrosse, who served asProject Directors on each of their respective campuses and who contrib-
uted voluntarily many long hours toward the development of the investi-
gation and the collection of the data. Without their valuable assist-
ance, this investigation would not have been possible.
The investigator would like to extend a special acknowledgment'
to Mr. John Storlie, Director of the Data Processing Center, Wisconsin
State University-LaCrosse, who volunteered many hours of his on time
as well as that of his center toward the development and completion of
the proces&ing of the data of this investigation.
The investigator would like to extend his gratitude and appre-ciation to Dr. William H. Clements and the other coordinators for the
Oonsortium on Research Daveloprent for their continuous assistance and
support throughout the investigation.
The investigator would like to thank the U. S. Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare under whose grant this research was
conducted.
Special thanks are extended to Mrs. Marcia Swan for her assist-
ance in preparing the many drafts and the final report of this study.
INTRODUCTION
Every year thousands of high school graduates enroll in collegesand universities across the nation as entering freshmen but, at the endof that year, a substantial portion of these students have withdrawn
from their respective institutions. These non-persisting students have
been the concern of many publics.
The desirability of education is a deep commitment in American
society. When a student does not persist in a selected college or uni-versity, society's immediate reactions tend to be that the individualhas sacrificed his own future, misappropriated personal and institution-
al resources, and probably detracted from the welfare of the nation.Many people tend to feel that those students who leave the academicscene prior to completion of the four years will become inextricablyand permanently immersed in an ever increasing pool of underdeveloped
resources. The contention seems to be that the non-persisting studentserves as a drain for the optimal development, conservation, and util-ization of human resources which will serve to provide a sound base for
societal progress.
The college or university tends to take a critical view of thenon-persisting student because of perceived economic implications for
the institution. These economic implications tend to complement andsupplement the college and university's acceptance of the society'sgoals for the optimal development of human resources. Educators withinthe college or university exhibit great concern over the non-persistingstudent since reduction in the full-time enrollment tends to have rami-fications for the use of residence halls, libraries, and classrooms.The non-persisting student is of concern to educators in public institu-tions since a reduction in enrollment may precipitate severe limitationsto continued expansion since such growth tends to be related to the num-ber of students enrolled. The parents of students tend to take an ex-tremely negative point of view of those persons who dO not persist incollege. They tend to regard the non-persister as a failure and prob-ably perceive him as an object which represents unfulfillinent of manydreams of achievement and many long years of struggle and sacrifice.This parental attitude may be poignant particularly in a college oruniversity where the vast proportion of the student population arefirst generation college students.
The attitude of the non-persisting student toward himself tendsto be an amalgamation of the reactions of the society, the institution,and his family towards his decision of non-persistence. The process ofmaking a decision to withdraw from the university is often coupled withstrong feelings of anxiety resulting from the predisposed attitudes ofthose around him. The negative attitudes which are reflected frequentlyby society and members of the college or university tend to formulatetremendous pressure on the student, resulting in severe impairment ofthe ability to progress in effective decision-making.
2
All of these factors have tended to make the problem of reten-
tion and withdrawal of college students an active and persistent topic
of investigation. The literature related to the retention and with-
drawal of college students tends to be extremely extensive. The status
of research on the university dropout has been reviewed by Knoell (1960)
and Summerskill (1962).
According to Knoell, there have been four major types of studies
which have focused on the retention and withdrawal of college students.
She indicated that these were:
(1) the census study, which serves primarily to establish base
line data for particular institutions or states;
(2) the "autopsy study" which attempts to identify the reasons
for attrition by asking the dropouts questions at the time
they withdraw;
(3) the case study approach, often used by admissions officers
and others whose concerns are decisions about students
rather than research; and
(4) prediction in which admission variables are related to
success and failure in college, including the dropout
( 6:64-65).
Summerskill's review of the literature tended to reveal con-
flicting evidence in findings of the various studies which examine such
factors as academic ability, personal motivation and adjustment, bio-
logical and social variables, and finances as these may be related to
college or university persistence. Be tended to indicate that academic
factors such as previous high school achievement and performance in col-
lege and finances tend to be the most consistent variables related, to
persistence in a college or university. The role of socio-economic
status of parents, high school size and location, and personal or social
adjustment of the student in connection with persistence in colleges and
universities is ill-defined (10:627-657)
Any review of the literature of reported studies in the field of
the university dropout tends to reflect a paucity of studies focused on
the characteristics of students among institutions and the relationship
of these traits to academic persistence. A. vast majority of the re-
search investigations have used an intra-institutional design. There
seems to be an obvious gap in data of inter-institutional comparisons
of persisting and non-persisting students.
Pervin, Reik, and Dalrymple ( 9) have indicated that a definite
factor in the concerns of the college dropout and the utilization of
talent may reside in the interaction of the individual and the institu-
tion. In essence, they seem to be in agreement with Kauffman when he
made the statement:
3
It may be more important to concern ourselveswith the most effective means of entering thehigher educational process and making the wisestpossible decisions at the entry point so long as
we continue to allow maximum flexibility and op-portunity for the individual student (5).
The crux of the issue seems to be this: All colleges and uni-
versities cannot be all things to all people. Institutions of higher
education have given only informal recognition to this in the past.
Historically, the college and the student have differentially appraised
one another as to the mutual benefits that can be gained from any union.
Such appraisals have not always been on rational grounds. Greater ra-
tionality seems to be called for in the decisions that must be made in
the future. Formal acknowledgement of such rationality seems to becalled into contention by the focus on the university dropout.
The issue of the educational sorting process - -by the individual
as well as by the institution--may not be relegated solely to an intra-
mural perspective. In those states where there is a system of univer-
sity education, there should be a system of inter-university analysis.
The major implication of such a concept seems to be that the
student in a state-wide system of higher education may have several
choices of campuses within such a system. All campuses may not serve
his particular needs equally. In this vein the alternatives may not
be unlike those he had when he assessed the potentialities of various
colleges and universities while in high school. In either instance,
within the high school or within the college, the choice could be re-
garded as one of selecting the institutional setting that would afford
maximal development. Definitive knowledge of the characteristics ofpersisting and non-persisting students on the various campuses of state
universities within a coordinated system would serve to aid the evalu-
ating process performed by the students and campus officials.
The concerns of society, institutions, parents, and students
were linked inextricably to this investigation. The non-persisting
student may contribute to the drain of developed human resources within
the nation. The non-persisting student may precipitate severe limita-
tions for institutional expansion, particularly in a coordinated sys-tem of higher education such as the one that exists in the state uni-
versity system that was a part of this investigation. The non-persist-
ing student may be faced with a parental perception of his failure,
particularly in some of the schools investigated, because of an enroll-
ment of a high proportion of "first generation" students. The possible
personal concerns of the non-persisting student are legitimate concerns
for any educator who accepts the concept that a premise in the educa-
tional process is the facilitation of effective and efficient decision-
making.
4
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to seek out the nature and extentof the diversity of the characteristics of persisting And non-persistingstudents within and among the various campuses of a state universitysystem. Specifically, the study attempted to discern what diversity ofmeasured scholastic aptitude existed on the various campuses within astate university system. Also, the study attempted to assess what divesty existed in non. intellective factors of persisting and non-persist-ing students who were enrolled on these various campuses. Finally, thestudy attempted to serve as an initial study in a comprehensive assess-ment of the university dropout within and among the various campuses ofselected state universities.
Statement of the Problem
The problem for this study can best be stated in question formwithin the basic areas of the investigation.
Within the area of scholastic aptitude, the following questionswere postulated: What is the nature and extent of the diversity ofmeasured scholastic aptitude of persisting and non-persisting studentswithin and among the various campuses? Are there significant differ-ences among persisting and non-persisting male and female students onthe various campuses with regard to scholastic aptitude?
Within the area of high school achievement, the following ques-tions were developed: What is the nature and extent of the diversityof previous high school achievement of persisting and non-persistingstudents within and among the various campuses? Are there significantdifferences among persisting and non - persisting male and female stu-dents with regard to previous high school achievement?
The following question was formulated with respect to univer-sity achievement: Are there significant cafferences among persistingand non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of creditsattempted, credits earned, and average grade points achieved?
With regard to non-intellective characteristics of persistingand non-persisting students, the following questions were postulated:Is there a significant disproportionality among male and female stu-dents with respect to persistence in college? Is there a significantdisproportionality among persisting and non-persisting students withrespect to change in academic major? Is there a significant dispro-portionality among persisting and non-persisting students with respectto the place of residence in college? Is there a significant dispro-portionality among sizes of high school graduating classes with re-spect to persistence in college?
Other questions which were postulated regarding characteristicsof persisting and non-persisting students were Is there a significantdisproportionality among persisting and non-persisting students with
.5
respect to indicated educational major? Is there a significant dispro-portionality among persisting and non-persisting students with regard toindicated vocational choicer Is there a significant difference amongpersisting and non-persisting students with respect to indicated voca-tional role preference? Is there a significant difference among per-bisting and non-persisting students on the basis of indicated educationalplans?
Research Hypotheses
In formulating the null hypotheses tested, the term "comparedgroups" refers to the subgroups of persisting (P), academic non-per-sisting (NPA), and non-academic non-persisting (NPO) students.
The following null hypotheses were tested:
(1) There are no significant differences in measured scholasticaptitude among the compared groups of students.
(2) There are no significant differences in measured scholasticaptitude of persisting students among the five campuses.
(3) There are no significant differences in measured scholasticaptitude of academic non-persisting students among the fivecampuses.
(4) There are no significant differences in measured scholasticaptitude of non-academic non-persisting students among thefive capuses.
(5) There are no significant differences in measured scholasticaptitude between male and female persisting students.
(6) There are no significant differences in measured scholasticaptitude between male and female academic non-persistingstudents.
(7) There are no significant differences in measured scholasticaptitude between male and female non-academic non-persist-ing students.
(8) There are no significant differences in average gradeachieved in high school among the compared groups ofstudents.
(9) There are no significant differences in average gradeachieved in high school of persisting students among thefive campuses.
(10) There are no significant differences in average gradeachieved in high school of the academic non-persistingstudents among the five campuses.
6
There are no significant differences in average gradeachieved in high school of the non-academic non-persist-ing students among the five campuses.
There are no significant differences in average gradeachieved in high school between male and female per-sisting students.
There are no significant differences in average gradeachieved in high school between male and female academicnon-persisting students.
There are no significant differences in average gradeachieved in high school between male and female non-academic non-persisting students.
There are no significant differences in the number ofuniversity credits attempted among persisting and non-persisting students among the five campuses.
(16) There are no significant differences in the number ofuniversity credits earned among persisting and non-per-sisting students among the five campuses.
(17) There are no significant differences in the number ofuniversity grade points achieved among persisting andnon-persisting students among the five campuses.
(18) There are no significant differences in the number ofmale and female students among compared groups of students.
(19) There are no significant differences among the sizes ofhigh school graduating classes among the compared groupsof students.
(20) There are no significant differences among the places ofresidence in college of the compared groups of students.
(21) There are no significant differences among the comparedgroups of students with respect to change in academicmajor.
(22)
(23)
(24)
(25)
There aregroups of
There aregroups of
There aregroups of
no significant differences among the comparedstudents in terms of educational major.
no significant differences among the comparedstudents in terms of vocational choice.
no significant differences among the comparedstudents in terms of vocational role preferences.
There are no significant differences among the comparedgroups of students in terms of educational aspirations.
Definition of Terms
The term persisting student referred to any student who has com-pleted the academic year in the anticipated sequential order without in-terruption. For the purpose of this study, the persisting student wasthe student who completed the 1965-66 academic year and who was enrolledas a sophomore in the fall semester of 1966.
The term non-persisting student referred to any student whoeither officially or unofficially withdrew from the universities inves-tigated and interrupted the anticipated sequential order of academicprogression. For the purpose of this study, the non-persisting studentwas the student who did not complete the 1965-66 academic year and whodid not enroll for the sophomore year in the fall of 1966.
The term academic non-persister (NPA) referred to any studentwho voluntarily or involuntarily withdrew from the university becauseof academic reasons.
The non-academic non-persisting student (NPO) referred to anystudent who either voluntarily or involuntarily withdrew from the uni-versity for reasons other than academically related concerns.
The term scholastic aptitude referred to the sub-scores achievedby each student in the sample on the American College Testing Program(ACT). The terms English, Mathematics, Natural Science, Social Science,and Composite referred to the various sub-scales of the American CollegeTesting Program.
The term non-intellective characteristics referred to the scoreson the student characteristic sub-scales of the American College TestingPro&ram (ACT).
The terms Educational Major, Vocational Choice, Vocational RolePreferences, Educational Role Preferences, and Most Important Goals inCollege referred to the specific sub-scales in this section of theAmerican College Testing Pro (ACT).
The termtriculation data referred to the data obtainedon all students from the various sub-scales of the American CollegeTesting Program prior to their actual enrollment in any of the fiveuniversities.
The termyost-matriculation data referred to the data obtainedon all students after they had been enrolled in the various collegesinvestigated.
The term credits attempted referred to the total number ofcredits attempted on a semester basis by the persisting and non-persist-ing students on each of the campuses investigated.
8
The term credits earned referred to the number of credits on a
semester basis by persisting and non-persisting students on each of the
five campuses investigated,
The termlraLa points referred to the total number of grade
points achieved by and non-persisting students on each of
the five campuses investigated.
Delimitation of the Problem
This investigation was confined to five state universities of
Wisconsin. The state universities involved were as follows: Wisconsin
State University-Stevens Point, Wisconsin State University- Whitewater,
Wisconsin State University-LaCrosse, Wisconsin State University-River
Falls, and Stout State University.
The student sample for this study was confined to those students
who enrolled on a full-time basis as freshmen in the fall, 1965, on the
five campuses selected for this study.
This study was delimited to an analysis of the variance of scho-
lastic aptitude and non-intellective characteristics of students en-
rolled on the five campuses selected for this investigation.
Limitations of the Problem
The study was limited to the extent that it reflected only those
characteristics of the student groups sampled at the time of the inves-
tigation. Because of the constant flow of students enrolled, subsequent
studies will need to be done in order to insure a reliable and valid
estimate of the characteristics of persisting and non-persisting stu-
dents among the five campuses.
The study was limited to the extent that the American College
Testing Program (ACT) and the post-matriculation data are suitable
measures of scholastic aptitude, achievement, and non-intellective
characteristics, respectively. The study was limited also to the ex-
tent that errors may have been introduced in the administration of the
instruments and the collection of the post-matriculation data.
The study was limited to the extent that the definition of per-
sisting and non-persisting students fails to distinguish between stu-
dents dropping out for differing reasons, such as health, personal,
disciplinary, or financial reasons.
The study was further limited to the extent that it tends to
fail to distinguish between students who withdraw during the middle of
the year and those who complete the first year, both of whom do not en-
roll during the sophomore year.
Finally, the investigation was limited to the extent that there
was no distinction made between voluntary and non-voluntary withdrawals.
9
I'IETHODOLOGY
Selection of Sample
The total student sample of this study consisted of students
who were enrolled on the five campuses on a full-time basis and were
classified by university standards as freshmen for the 1965-66 academic
year. Essentially, the total student sample consisted of the entire
freshman class of 1965-66, for whom ACT scores were available in the
five state universities which participated in the investigation.
The sampling procedure used was chosen for the following rea-
sons: the study concerned itself with the diversity of student charac-
teristics between persisting and non-persisting students within and
among the various campuses of the state universities. Since the entire
freshman class needed to be surveyed in order to identify the sub-
samples of persisting and non-persisting students, the entire freshman
population of the five universities was used instead of other sampling
procedures.
The 1965-66 freshman class was selected because of the availa-
bility of intellective and non-intellective pre-matriculation data.
Prior to the 1965-66 academic year, some of the institutions investi-
gated had not requested the collection and analybis of non-intellective
data on their freshman classes. The sampling was delimited to the 1965-
66 year in order to assure uniformity of data.
All the institutions investigated participated in the post-
enrollment analysis provided by the American Colle e Testing Program
for the entering freshman class during 1965- . The American College
Testing Program provided each university a listing of all students who
had responded to the American College Testiqgprograinduring 1964-65,
and who had subsequently enrolled in each of the institutions investi-
gated. Each of the five project directors on the campuses participating
in this study then subdivided the total sample into three groups--per-
sisting, academic non-persisting, and non-academic non-persisting students.
The principal investigator realized that the two subgroups of
non-persisting students masked certain data. For example, by pooling
all non-persisting students who either voluntarily or involuntarily
withdrew from the university for reasons other than academic concerns,
the specific reason for the withdrawal, i.e., health, financial, or
discipline, could not be identified. However, the investigator felt
that the objectives of the study were exploratory and the purposes of
investigation would be satisfied through such pooling techniques. The
same rationale was applied to the academic non -persister.
Collection of the Data
The data collected for analysis in this study were from either
the American College Testing Program (ACT) which was completed by each
10
student prior to entering into one of the fIve Institutions investigatedor from data obtained from the students' cumulative folder maintained byeach of the participating schools.
In order to approximate a standardization of the collection ofdata, several meetings were established with all five project directors.These meetings were particularly important to the collection of the post-matriculation data. During these meetings, the principal investigatorindicated the general nature and purpo,se of the research being conductedand emphasized the need for uniformity of data on all students in orderto facilitate comparative analysis.
The most difficult aspect of this portion of the investigationwas to identify data on all students which was available at all institu-tions. Even though there was considerable agreement among all institu-tions with regard to the type of data collected on all students, themethods of collection, retention, and retrieval of such data variedwidely. Consequently, the time necessary for the completion of the col-lection of all post-matriculation data from each of the five institu-tions investigated was prolonged. In each instance, the registrar'soffice on each campus was the source of information for all post-matric-ulation data on persisting and non-persisting students.
Each project director on each of the participating campusescollected and subgrouped the data on the persisting and non-persistingstudents. These data were analyzed by the principal investigator.
Scoring of the Data
The scoring of the pre-matriculation data was done by the scor-ing service at the Measurement Research Center, Iowa City, Iowa. Thisscoring service is the only means of scoring the ACT. The authors ofthe instrument will not release, under any circumstances, the scoringtemplates. The scoring service does provide the IBM cards on which thescores are reported. Both raw scores and percentile scores are reported.
The scoring service provided the initial analysis of the per-sisting and non-persisting subgroups of students on all scales of theACT. The scoring service did not provide comparative analysis amongthe five institutions investigated.
The compilation of the post-matriculation data for the persist-ing and non-persisting subgroups was done by the Data Processing Centerat Wisconsin State University-LaCrosse, LaCrosse, Wisconsin.
Coding of the Data
In order to minimize possible errors in coding of the post,matriculation data, all coding of data was done by the project directorson each of the campuses. All coding was checked several timrs to insurethat there were no errors or omissions in coding.
11
All of the data were coded according to a standardized codingform which had been developed by the principal investigator. All projectdirectors were intimately aware of the rationale and procedure to be em-ployed in the coding process.
Statistical Treatment of the Data
The main objective of the study was to investigate differencesamong persisting and non-persisting students among various state uni-versity campuses on the basis of their scores on tests of intellectiveand non-intellective characteristics. With the purpose of determiningdifferences between and among groups and the significance of these dif-ferences, Chi Square and Studentts "t" test of significance were appliedto the data. The analysis of variance model was utilized to test dif-ferences among students among campuses.
All final comparative analysis and statistical treatment ofdata was done at Wisconsin State University-Stevens Point by the prin-cipal investigator and the staff of the Office of Institutional Research.
12
RESULTS
The main objective of this study was to seek out the nature and
extent of the diversity among persisting and non-persisting students
enrolled on the campuses of five state universities. Students who were
enrolled on a full-time basis as freshmen during the 1965-66 academic
year on the campuses of the five state universities were subgrouped
according to their persistence In school. These subgroups of persist-ing and non-persisting students were compared on the basis of scores
on a test of scholastic aptitude, previous high school achievement,
university achievement, selected personality attributes, and various
personal-biographical data -thich were developed as a result of their
enrollment in each of the five schools investigated.
The data obtained from this investigation are presented inthree general categories which will be discussed in the following se-
quence:
(1) the diversity of persisting and non-persisting studentsin terms of scholastic aptitude;
(2) the heterogeneity among persisting and non-persistingstudents in terms of previous high school achievementand college performance;
(3) the multiformity among persisting and non-persistingstudents in terms of selected personal-biographical data.The personal-biographical data included the factors ofsex, college residence, size of high school graduating
class, changes in declared academic major, educationalmajor, vocational choice, vocational role preferences,and educational plans.
Since there were very few variables which did not discriminateamong persisting and non-persisting students among campuses, all results
of the investigation will be presented.
Analysis of Scholastic Aptitude
A purpose of the investigation was to seek out differencesamong persisting and non-persisting students on the basis of scholastic
aptitude. The total student sample had participated in the AmericanCollege Testing Program (ACT). The scores on the various sub-scales of
the ACT were used as the estimate of the scholastic aptitude of thepersisting and non-persisting student.
The statistical treatment of analysis of variance was used fortesting differences among the compared groups of students. If any of
the variance ratios exceeded the value required for significant differ-ences to be accepted at the 0.05 level of confidence, Duncan's New Mul-
tiple Range Test was applied to the data to determine which mean(s)
13
were contribufing to the significant F ratio ( 3:167-176). Where the F
ratio proved to be 6ignificant, the results of the application of Dun-
can's New Multiple Range Test are reviewed immediately following the ap-
propriate analysis of variance table. In each case where the application
of Duncan's New Multiple Range Test was used, the shortest significant
ranges were computed at the same level of confidence as indicated by the
related variance ratio.
The interpretation of Duncan's New Multiple Range
follows: Any two means appearing together within the same
underscored, are not significantly different. Any two me
ing in the same subset are significantly different.
Test is assubset, i.e.,
ans not appear-
In the discussion of these results the following abbreviations
will be used for the categories of persisting and non-persisting stu-
dents:
Persisting student - P
Academic non-persisting student - NPA
Non-academic non-persisting student - NPO
Table 1 presents the F ratios for the differences among persist-
ing and non-persisting students on all campuses on the basis of mean
scores on the ACT scales. As indicated in Table 1, there were highly
significant differences found among persisting and non-persisting stu-
dents on all campuses on all scales of the ACT test.
TABLE 1, DIFFERENCES AMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS ON
ALL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT SCALES
ACTScales
Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean
Variation Squares Freedom Square
Between grpsEnglish Within grps
TotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grps
Composite Within grpsTotal
Mathe-matics
SocialScience
NaturalScience
5359118500123859
9943
2157372256807452
1740991815515624
175313180 37
965102708109673
2 2679.5
7006 16.9
70082 4972.0
7006 30.6
70082 3726.0
7006 24.8
70082 2812.0
7006 25.0
70082 3482.0
7006 14.7
7008
F P
158.5 0.001
161.5 0.001
149.9 0.001
112.4 0.001
237.5 0.001
14
The results of the application of. Duncan's New Multiple RangeTest to the differences among persisting and non-persisting studentson the ACT-English scale are presented in Table 2. As Table 2 shows,three distinct slit sets of means were formed which tended to be signifi-
cantly different from each other.
TABLE 2. DUNCAN'S NEW MIMPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS ON ALL CAMPUSES ON THEBASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT-ENGLISH SCALE
NPA NPO PPersist-
Means(N = 1186) (N = 1584) (N = 4233)
ence17.1 18.9 19.5
Shortestsignificantranges
NPA
NPO
P
17.11.8 2.4
(57.24)* (103.20)* R2 = 19.13
18.90.6
(28.80)* R3 = 19.72
19.5
NPONPA
P
*Significant at the 0.001 level
Based on these results, persisting students, regardless of cam-pus, tended to achieve a significantly higher mean score on the ACT-English scale than either of the two non-persisting student subgroups.Students who did not persist because of academic reasons, regardless ofcampus, seemed to reflect a significantly lower mean score on the ACT-
English scale than persisting students or students who did not persistbecause of non-academic reasons.
Table 3 presents the results of Duncan's New Multiple Range Testapplied to the differences among persisting and non-persisting studentson all campuses on the basis of mean scores on the ACT-Mathematics scale.According to these results, there were three significantly differentsubsets formed.
These results seemed to indicate that persisting students, re-gardless of campus, tended to make significantly higher mean scores onthe ALT-Mathematics scale than did either of the two non-persistingstudent subgroups. The academic non-persisting subgroup, regardless ofcampus, tended to achieve a Elignificant3T lower mean score on the ACT -Mathematics sub-scale than did either the persisting or non-academicnon-persisting student.
15
TABLE 3. DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG PERSISTING AND NON - PERSISTING STUDENTS ON ALL CAMPUSES ON THE
BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON TEE ACT-MATHEMATICS SCALE
NPA NPO
Persist- (N = 1186) (N = 1584) (N = 4233)Shortest
Means significantence ranges
18.1 20.0 21.3
NPA
NPO
P
18.1
1.9 3.2(60.42)* (137.60)* R2 = 25.74
1.3
20.0 (62.70)* R3 = 26.53
21.3
NPONPA
P
*oia,;f1,11+. at the 0.001 level
Table 4 presents the results of the application of Duncan's NewMultiple Range Test applied to the differences among persisting and non-persisting students on all, campuses on the basis of scores on the ACT-
Social Science scale.
As Table 4 indicates, there were three significantly different
subsets formed. These results tended to indicate that persisting stu-dents, regardless of campus, tended to achieve a significantly highermean score on the ACT-Social Science scale than either of the non-
persisting student subgroups. The non-academic non-persisting studentsubgroup, while being significantly lower than the persisting studentsample, tended to be significantly higher on the basis of mean score
achieved on the ACT-Social Science scale.
Table 5 indicates the differences among persisting and non-persisting students on all campuses on the basis of the ACT-NaturalScience scale following the application of Duncan's New Multiple Range
Test.
The results presented in Table 5 tended to indicate that theacademic non-persisting student tended to achieve a significantly lowermean score on the ACT-Natural Science scale than either the persistingor non-academic non-persisting student subgroups. Furthermore, thepersisting student subgroup tended to achieve a significantly highermean score than either of the non-persisting student samples.
16
TABLE 4. DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO ilib DIFFERENCES
AMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS ON ALL CAMPUSES ON THE
BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT - SOCIAL SCIENCE SCALE
NPA NPO P
Persist-Means
(N = 1186) (N = 1584) (N = 4233)
ence19.4 21.2 22.2
Shortestsignificantranges
NPA 1.8 2.8
19.4 (57.20)* (43.00)* R2 = 23.22
NPO 1.0
21.2 (47.90)* R3 = 23.94
P22.2
NPONPA
P
*Significant at the 0.001 level
TABLE 5. DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES
AMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS ON ALL CAMPUSES ON THE
BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT-NATURAL SCIENCE SCALE
NPA NPO P
Persist-Means
(N = 1186) (N = 1584) (N = 4233)
ence19.8 21.2 22.2
Shortestsignificantranges
NPA
NPO
P
19.8
1.4 2.4
(44.50)* (103.20)* R2 = 23.27
21.2
1.0(47.90)* R
3= 23.99
22.2
NPONPA
P
*Significant at the 0.001 level
17
The results of the application of Duncan's New Multiple Range
Test applied to the differences among persisting and non-persisting stu-
dents on the basis of mean scores on the ACT-Composite scale are pre-
sented in Table 6,
TABLE 6. DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES
AMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS ON ALL CAMPUSES ON THE
BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT-COMPOSITE SCALE
Persist-Means
ence
NPA NPO(N = 1186) (N = 1584) (N = 4233)
18.7 2o.4 21.4
Shortestsignificantranges
NPA 1.7 2.7
18.7 (54.10)* (116.10)* R2 = 17.82
NPO 1.4
20.4 (67.10)* R3= 18.38
P21.4
NPONPA
P
*Significant at the 0.001 level
Based on the results presented in Table 6, three significantly
different subsets contributed to the significance of the variance ratio.
Persisting students, regardless of campus, tended to achieve a signifi-
cantly higher mean score on the ACT-Composite scale than did either of
the non-persisting student samples. The academic non-persisting stu-
dent tended to achieve a significantly lower mean score than did either
the persisting or non-academic non-persisting student sub-samples.
Differences Between Male and Female Students on ACT Scores
In the attempt to discern if there were any significant differ-
ences between male and female students on the basis of scores on thetests of scholastic aptitude, the mean scores achieved on the ACT scales
were compared. Since significant differences had been identified among
persisting and non-persisting students, separate analyses were made for
the three categories of persisting and non-persisting students in deter-
mining the significance of any differences between male and female mem-
bers of the student sample.
18
Table 7 presents the differences between male and female per-sisting students on the basis of the ACT scales. Significant differenceswere found between the mean scores of four of the sub-scales of the ACTof which three of these differences were significant at the 0.001 levelof confidence.
TABLE 7. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE PERSISTING STUDENTS ON THEBASIS OF ACT SCALES
Male FemaleACT (N = 2410) (N = 1824)Scales
Mean d Mean
t P
English 18.5 4.1 20.8 3.8 5.96 0.001
Mathematics 22.3 5.4 19.9 5.6 14.11 0.001
Social22.0 4.9 22.3 4.9 1.97 0.05Science
Natural22.6 4.9 21.5 4.9 7.22 0.001Science
Composite 21.5 3.8 21.3 3.8 1.06 NSey.
According to the results presented in Table 7, persisting femalestudents tended to make significantly higher mean scores on the Englishand Social Science scales of the ACT than did male persisting students.The mean score difference between male and female persisting students onthe basis of the ACT-English scale tended to be highly significant.
Male persisting students tended to make significantly higher meanscores on the Mathematics and Natural Science scales of the ACT than didfemale persisters. The mean score difference in each case was highlysignificant.
There were no significant differences identified between maleand female persisting students in terms of the mean scores on the ACT-Composite scale.
Based on these results, the §12.12, Mathematics, Social Science,and Natural Science sub-scales of the ACT tended to be identified asdiscriminate factors between male and female persisting students.
The results of the analysis for significant differences betweenmale and female students who did not persist because of academic reasonsare presented in Table 8. There were significant differences betweenmale and female students who were academic non-persisters in terms ofmean scores for all of the sub-scales of the ACT. All of the differ-ences can be considered to be highly significant.
19
1
TABLE 8. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTINGSTUDENTS ON THE BASIS OF THE ACT SCALES
ACTMale
(N = 811)Scales
Mean d
English
Mathematics
SocialScience
NaturalScience
Composite
16.6
19,3
19.7
20.5
19.2
4.2
5.2
4.9
5.1
3.8
Female(N = 376)
Mean d
18.2 3.8
15.5 5.6
18.8 5.1
18.2 4.8
17.8 3.4
t P
7.33 0.001
11.11 0.001
2.86 0.01
7.97 0.001
6.35 0.001
According to these results, female students who did not persistbecause of academic reasons appeared to make significantly higher meanscores on the ACT-English scale than did male students who did not per-sist for similar reasons.
The results tended to indicate that male students who did notpersist because of academic reasons seemed to make significantly highermean scores on the Mathematics, Social Science, Natural Science, andComposite sub-scales of the ACT than did the female students who didnot persist because of similar reasons.
All of the scales of the ACT seemed to discriminate betweenmale and female academic non-persisting students. The results tendedto indicate that the male academic non -persister may have had a signifi-cantly greater scholastic aptitude than did his female counterpart. Themale academic non-persister seemed to reflect a significantly higherscholastic potential in terms of the general areas of Mathematics, So-cial Science, and Natural Science. The only area in which the femaleacademic non-persister tended to indicate a significantly greater scho-lastic potential than her male counterpart was in terms of the generalarea of English.
Table 9 indicates the differences between male and female stu-dents who did not persist because of non-academic reasons in terms ofthe mean scores for the five sub-scales of the ACT. Highly significantdifferences between mean scores were indicated for three of the sub-scales.
Female students who did not persist because of non-academic rea-sons tended to make a significantly higher mean score on the ACT-Englishscale than did male students who did not persist for similar reasons.
20
TABLE 9. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE NON-ACADEMTC NON-PERSIST-
ING STUDENTS ON THE BASIS OF THE ACT SCALES
Male Female
ACT (N = 833) (N = 752)
ScalesMean d Mean
English
Mathematics
SocialScience
NaturalScience
Composite
17.6 4.2
21.1 5.3
21.0 5.2
21.8 5.2
20.5 4.0
20.3 4.1
18.9 5.6
21.4 5.1
20.5 5.0
20.4 4.0
t P
12.94 0.001
8.00 0.001
1.34 NS
5.07 0.001
0.49 NS
Male students who did not persist for non-academic reasons tended
to make a significantly higher mean score on the Mathematics and Natural
Science sub-scales of the ACT than did female students who were their
counterparts.
There were no significant differences found between male and fe-
male students who did not persist for non-academic reasons in terms of
mean scores on either the Social Science or Composite scales of the ACT.
Based on these results, the English, Mathematics, and Natural
Science scales of the ACT tended to be discriminate variables between
male and female students who did not persist because of non-academic
reasons.
In summary, the analysis of the differences between male and fe-
male persisting and non-persisting students seemed to indicate that the
female students, regardless of persisting or non-persisting status,
tended to make a significantly higher mean score on the ACT-English
scale than did her male counterpart. Conversely, the male student, re-
gardless of persistence status, tended to make a significantly higher
mean score on the Mathematics and Natural Science sub-scales of the ACT.
The persisting female students appeared to indicate a significantly
higher mean score on the Social Science sub-scale of the ACT, whereas
the male student who was a non- persister, because of academic reasons
tended to reflect a significantly higher mean score than did the female
student for this same sub-scale.
In terms of the Composite score for the ACT, there did not ap-
pear to be any significant differences between male and female persist -
iflg students or non-persisting students who withdrew for non-academic
reasons. However, male students who withdrew for academic reasons
tended to reflect a significantly higher mean score on the Composite
scale of the ACT than did the female student who did not persist for
similar reasons.
21
Differences Among Campuses on the Basis of ACT Scores
Differences Among Students Am2213.uses. A purpose
of the study was to determine if there were significant differences among
campuses in terms of the scholastic aptitude of persisting and non-per-
sisting students. Since significant differences had been identified
among persisting and non-persisting students, as well as between male
and female students, the data were partitioned into six separate sub-
groups where significant dlfferences had been determined prior to the
comparison of campuses on the basis of mean scores achieved on the ACT.
This procedure was necessary in order to ensure that any differences
that might be identified among campuses in terms of mean scores achieved
on the various scales of the ACT were valid and could not be attributed
to either differences between male and female students or among persist-
ing and non-persisting students. Again, where significant differences
were determined among campuses Duncants New Multiple Range Test was ap-
plied to the variance ratio data in order to determine the location of
the source of variance.
Table 10 presents the results of the differences among female
persisting students among campuses on the basis of mean scores on the
ACT scales. As these results indicate, significant differences were
found among campuses on the basis of mean scores achieved by female per-
sisting students on ell of the sub-scales of the ACT with the exception
of the Natural Science scale.
TABLE 10. DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES
ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT SCALES
ACTScales
English
Mathe-matics
SocialScience
NaturalScience
Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean
Variation Squares Freedom SquareF P
Between grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin. grps
TotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotal
294 425903 1811
26197 181
73.4414.30 5.14 0.01
335 4 83
53776 1811 31.35 2.67
,54111 181
52343855 1811 24.23 5.80 0.01
4478 19196 48.90
43078 1811 23.79 2.06 NS
422Z1 1815
0.05
130.41
The results of Duncants New Multiple Range Test as applied to the
differences among female persisting students among campuses on the basis
of mean score achieved on the ACT-English scale are presented in Table 11.
These results tended to indicate that two subsets of means were signifi-
cantly different from each other and seemed to account for the significant
variance ratio found in Table 10.
22
W
TABLE 11.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIEDTO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTINGSTUDENTS
AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF THE MEAN
SCORE ON THE ACT - ENGLISH SCALE
SLC
RF
WSP
Shortest
Campus
Means
(N = 237)
(N = 441)
(N = 194)
(N = 553)
(N = 391)
significant
ranges
20.0
20.5
21.0
21.0
21.1
S
20.0
0.5
(8.75)
1.0
(14.6)*
1.0
(18.2)*
1.1
(18.9)*
R2
= 13.77
LC
20.5
0.5
(8.2)
0.5
(11.1)
0.6
(12.2)
R3= 14.34
RF
21.0
0.0
(0.0)
0.1
(1.6)
R = 14.74
21.0
0.1
(2.1)
R = 14.84
SP
21.1
SLC
RF
SP
*Significant at the 0.01 level
The result -s presented in Table? Li suggested that female students
enrolled on the campuses of Stout and aCrosse were net significantly
different on the ba7is of the mean scores on the ACT-English scale. How-
ever, female students enrolled on the campuses of River Falls, White-
water, and Stevens Point, while not being significantly different from
each other, tended to achieve a significantly higher mean score on the
ACT-English scale than did their counterparts enrolled on the campuses
located at Stout and LaCrosse.
Table 12 presents the results of the application of Duncan's New
Y ltiple Range Test to the differences among female persisting students
e -,g campuses on the basis of the mean score on the ACT-Mathematics
scale.
The results shown in Table 12 suggested that two significantly
different subsets of campuses contributed to the significance of the
variance ratio among campuses. Female persisting students enrolled on
the campuses of Stout, LaCrosse, River Falls, and Stevens Point did not
appear to be significantly different in terms of the mean score achieved
on the ACT-Mathematics scale. Female persisting students enrolled on
the campuses located at River Falls, Stevens Point, and Whitewater did
not appear to differ significantly. However, female students enrolled
on the campus located at Whitewater tended to achieve a significantly
higher mean score on the ACT-Mathematics scale than did their counter-
parts who were enrolled on the campuses located at Stout and LaCrosse.
As these results indicate, the campuses at River Falls and Stevens
Point were shared by both subsets.
The results presented in Table 13 indicate the application of
Duncan's New Multiple Range Test to the differences among female per-
sisting students among campuses on the basis of the mean score on the
ACT-Social Science scale. These results suggested that two signifi-
cantly different subsets of campuses contributed to the significance
of the variance ratio. Female persisting students enrolled on the cam-
puses of Stout, LaCrosse, and River Falls tended to form one subgroup
of campuses. The second subset seemed to consist of female persisting
students on the campuses of River Falls, Whitewater, and Stevens Point.
The campus located at River Falls was shared by both subsets.
Based on these results, female persisting students on the cam-
puses located at Stout, LaCrosse, and River. Falls did not differ signi-
ficantly from each other, Furthermore, female persisting students en-
rolled on the campuses located at River Falls, Whitewater, and Stevens
Point did not vary significantly on the basis of mean score on the ACT-
Social Science scale. However, female persisting students enrolled on
the campuses located at Whitewater and Stevens Point, while not differ-
ing significantly from each other, did achieve a significantly higher
mean score on the ACT-Social Science scale than did their counterparts
who were enrolled on the campuses located at Stout and LaCrosse.
24
TABLE 12.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTING STUDENTS
AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF THE MEAN SCORE ON THE ACT-MATHEMATICS SCALE
Campus
Means
S
(N = 237)
LC
(N = 441)
RF
(N = 194)
SP
(N = 391)
W(N = 553)
Shortest
significant
ranges
19.3
19.4
19.9
19.9
20.4
S
19.3
0.1
(1.75)
0.6
(8.76)
0.6
(10.32)
1.1
(20.02)*
R2= 15.52
LC
19.4
0.5
(8.20)
0.5
(8.02)
1.0
(22.14)*
R3
= 16.34
RF
19.9
0.0
(0.00)
0.5
(8.45)
R2,= 16.89
SP
19.9
0.5
(10.62)
R5
= 17.29
20.4
SLC
RF
SF
RF
SP
*Significant at the 0.05 level
TABLE 13.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTING STUDENTS
AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF THE MEAN SCORE ON THE ACT-SOCIAL SCIENCE SCALE
SLC
RF
WSP
Shortest
Campus
Means
(N = 237)
(N = 441)
(N = 194)
(N = 553)
(N = 391)
significant
ranges
21.6
21.7
22.6
22.7
22.9
0.1
1.0
1.1
1.3
21.6
(1.75)
(14.60)
(20.02)*
(22.49)*
R2 = 17.92
LC
0.9
1.0
1.2
21.7
(14.76)
(22.14)*
(24.42)*
R3= 18.68
r.)
RF
0.1
0.3
22.6
(1.69)
(4.83)
R4 = 19.19
0.2
22.7
,(4.25)
R5 = 19.57.
SP
22.9
MO
.
RF
WSP
SLC
RF
*Significant at the 0.01 level
Table 14 presents the results of the differences among male per-sisting students among campuses oh the basis of mean scores on the ACTscales. The results shown in Table 14 suggested that significant differ-ences were indicated among campuses on all the sub-scales of the ACT interms of mean score achieved among the male persisting student sub-samples.
TABLE 14. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ONTHE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT SCALES
ACT Source of Sum of Degrees of MeanScales Variation Squares Freedom Square
Between grps 597 4 149.2
English Within grps 39014 2405 16.2 9.20 0.01
Total 39611 2409
Between grps 301 4 75.4Mathe-
Within grps 68739 2405 28.6 2.64 0.05matics
Total 69040 2409
SocialBetween grps 7e-------- 4 190.0
ScienceWithin grps 58018 2405 24.1 7.88 0.01
Total 58778 2409
NaturalBetween grps 686 4 171.4
ScienceWithin grps 56297 2405 23.4 7.32 0.01
Total 56983 2409
The application of Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied tothe differences among male persisting students among campuses on thebasis of mean scores on the ACT-English scale are presented in Table15. These results suggested that three significantly different subsetsof campuses contributed to the significant differences found among cam-puses.
Based on these results, male persisting students enrolled onthe campuses located at Stout and River Falls did not differ signifi-cantly on the basis of mean score on the ACT - English scale. Male per-
sisting students enrolled on the campuses located at River Falls, La-Crosse, and Whitewater did not differ significantly. The third subsetof campuses consisted of male persisting students enrolled at LaCrosse,Whitewater, and Stevens Point.
These results suggested that male persisting students enrolledon the campuses located at LaCrosse and Whitewater tended to achieve asignificantly higher mean score on the ACT-English scale than did theircounterparts enrolled on the campus located at Stout. Male persistingstudents enrolled on the campus located at Stevens Point tended toachieve a significantly higher mean score on the ACT-English scale thandid their counterparts enrolled on either of the campuses located atStout or River Falls.
27
lhar
edid
eig
TABLE 15.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST
APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES
AMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS
AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS
OF MEAN SCORES ON THEACT-ENGLISH SCALE
Campus
S RF
LC
co
w SP
Means
S
(N = 222)
RF
(N = 382)
LC
(N = 529)
W(N = 691)
SP
(N = 586)
Shortest
significant
ranges
17.3
18.1
18.5
18.6
19.1
0.8
1.2
1.3
1.8
17.3
(13.41)
(21.22)*
(23.83)*
(32.29)*
= 14.64
R2
0.4
0.5
1.0
18.1
(8.42)
(11.09)
(21.50)*
R3= 15.26
0.1
0.6
18.5
(2.45)
(14.14)
R = 15.68
0.5
18.6
(12.59)
R 3= 15.99
19.1
S
RF
RF
LC
LC
SP
*Significant at the 0.01 level
The multiple comparison of the mean scores on the ACT Mathematics
scale as indicated by male persisting students among the various campuses
is presented in Table 16.
The results presented in Table 16 appeared to indicate that male
persisting students enrolled on the campuses located at River Falls,
Whitewater, and Stevens Point tended to achieve significantly higher
mean scores on the Mathematics sub-scale of the ACT than did their coun-
terparts enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse. The differencesbetween LaCrosse and the subset of three campuses seemed to account for
the significant variance found among campuses on the basis of this sub-
scale of the ACT.
Table 17 presents the application of Duncants New Multiple Range
Test to the differences among male persisting students on the basis of
mean scores on the ACT-Social Science scale. These results indicated
two significantly different subsets of campuses. One subset consisted
of male persisting students enrolled on the campuses located at River
Falls, LaCrosse, Whitewater, and Stevens Point. While the male per-
sisting students enrolled on these campuses did not differ significantly
from each other, they did appear to achieve a significantly higher mean
score on the Social Science sub-scale of the ACT than did their counter-
parts who were enrolled on the campus located at Stout.
The multiple comparison of mean scores on the ACT-Natural Science
scale achieved by male persisting students among campuses is presented
in Table 18. The results shown in Table 18 suggested three subsets ofcampuses tended to account for the significant differences found among
campuses.
According to the results presented in Table 18, male persistingstudents enrolled on the campus located at River Falls tended to achieve
significantly higher mean scores on the Natural Science sub-scale of the
ACT than did their male counterparts at Stout. Furthermore, male per-
sisting students enrolled on the campus located at Stevens Point tended
to achieve higher mean scores on the ACT-Natural Science scale than did
their counterparts enrolled on the campuses located at Stout and LaCrosse.
Since there were no significant differences found between maleand female persisting students with regard to mean scores achieved on
the ACT-Composite scale, these students were pooled into one persisting
group with the mean scores achieved on each campus by this group com-
pared to seek out differences among campuses. As indicated in Table 19,
significant differences were found among campuses.
29
!M
I M
IR 1
E11
Mir
Int
1111
11-1
1111
11'"
'
TABLE 16.
DUNCANTS NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THEDIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS
AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN
SCORES ON THE ACT-MATHEMATICS SCALE
Campus
Means
LC
21.5
S
LC
SRF
(N = 529)
(N = 222)
(N = 382)
21.5
22.0
22.3
0.5
0.8
(8.84)
(16.84)*
0.3
WSP
Shortest
(N = 691)
(N = 586)
significant
ranges
22.7
22.8
1.2
1.3
(29.36)*
(30.63)*
R2= 14.83
0.7
0.8
22.0
(5.03)
(12.83)
(14.35)
R3
= 15.61
RF
0.4
0.5
CD
22.3
(8.87)
(10.75)
R4= 16.14
0.1
22.7
(2.52)
R5
= 16.53
SP
22.8
LC
S S
RF
SP
*Significant at the 0.05 level
1, s
.,47
.V
o..
a
TABLE 17.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIEDTO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING
STUDENTS
AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE
ACT - SOCIAL SCIENCE SCALE
Campus
SMeans
(N = 222)
RF
(N = 382)
20.4
21.8
S
20.4
1.4
(23.46)*
RF
21.8
LC
22.1
22.2
SP
22.5
LC
WSP
Shortest
(N = 529)
(N = 691)
(N = 586)
significant
ranges
22.1
22.2
22.5
1.7
1.8
2.1
(30.06)*
(32.99)*
(37.67)*
R2
= 17.89
0.3
0.4
0.37
(6.32)
(8.87)
(15.05)
R3
= 18.64
0.1
0.4
(2.45)
(9.42)
R4= 19.15
0.3
(7.55)
R5
= 19.53
RF
LC
WSP
S
*Significant at the 0.01 level
*No
lori
Sim
iN
od11
011
OM
IM
Otin
MI
Inn
Inn
mem
11.1
1111
1111
1111
11
TABLE 18.
DUNCANtS NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS
AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT-NATURAL SCIENCE SCALE
Campus
S LC
k.0
wm
RF
SP
Means
S
(N = 222)
LC
(N = 529)
W(N = 691)
21.6
22.3
22.4
21.6
0.7
(12.38)
0.8
(14.66)
22.3
0.1
(2.45)
22.4
22.8
23.4
S
LC
W
LC
W
RF
SP
Shortest
(N = 382)
(N = 586)
significant
ranges
22.8
23.4
1.2
1.8
(20.11)*
(32.29)*
R2
= 17.63
0.5
1.1
(10.53)
(25.92)*
R3= 18.37
o.4
1.0
(8.87)
(25.18)
R4
= 18.88
0.6
(12.90)
R5= 19.25
RF
SP
*Significant at the 0.01 level
44,..
.,1.
TABLE 19. DIFFERENCES AMONG PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE
BASIS OF MEAN SCORE FOR THE ACT-COMPOSITE SCALE
ACT Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean
Scales Variation Squares Freedom Square
Between grps 729 4 132.1
Composite Within grps 62670 1229 14.8
Total 63399 42)3
F P
8.92 0.01
Duncangs New Multiple Range Test was applied to the differences
among persisting students among campuses on the basis of the mean score
achieved for the ACT-Composite scale. The results of this statistical
comparison are presented in Table 20.
These results suggested that three subsets of campuses contrib-
uted to the significant difference found among campuses. Based on these
results, persisting students enrolled on the campus located at River
Falls tended to achieve significantly higher mean scores on the ACT-
Composite scale than did persisting students enrolled on the campus lo-
cated at Stout. Male persisting students enrolled on the campus located
at Stevens Point tended to achieve a higher mean score for the Composite
sub-scale of the ACT than their counterparts enrolled on the campuses
located at Stout, Whitewater, and LaCrosse, but did not vary significant-
1,y from those persisting students enrolled on the campus located at
River Falls.
Differences Among Academic Non-Persisting Students Among Campuses.
Since significant differences were revealed between male and female aca-
demic non-persisting students on all scales of the ACT, separate compar-
isons of campuses were made for male and female academic non-persisting
students.
Table 21 presents the differences among female academic non -persisting students among campuses on the basis of mean scores for the
ACT scales. As the results presented in Table 21 indicate, significant
differences were revealed among female academic non-persisting students
among campuses on the basis of mean scores for four of the five ACT
scales. Based on these results, the English, Social Science, Natural
Science, and Composite sub-scales of the ACT seemed to be discriminate
variables among female academic non-persisting students among campuses.
33
TABLE 20.
DUNCANIS NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO DIFFERENCESAMONG PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG
CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORE FOR THE ACT-COMPOSITE
SCALE
Campus
S w LC
RF SP
SW
LC
RF
SP
Means
(N = 458)
(N = 1243)
(N = 970)
(N = 584)
(N = 977)
20.6
20.6
21.0
21.4
21.9
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.3
20.6
(o.o)
(10.02)
(18.12)*
(32.46)*
0.4
0.8
1.3
20.6
(13.20)
(11.27)
(43.03)*
0.4
0.9
21.0
(10.80)
(28.08)*
0.5
21.4
(13.52)
21.9
RF
SP
WLC
RF
SW
LC
Shortest
significant
ranges
R2= 14.03
R = 14.61
2--
R4
= 15.02
R5= 15.32
*Significant at the 0.01 level
35
TABLE 21. DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS
AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES FOR THE ACT SCALES
ACTScales
Source ofVariation
Mathe-matics
Between grpsWithin grpaTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin gypsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotal
SocialScience
NaturalScience
Composite
Sum ofSquares
426523656621
74182
539252
979021883168534212
408042 2
Degrees of MeanFreedom Square
F P
4 10 .5o
371 14.10 7.54 0.01
371
28.5519.99 1.42 NS
132.50
371 24.90
37i
371374
371
5.32 0.01
54.6022.40 2.43 0.05
53.1010.90 4.83 0.01
Table 22 indicates the results of the application of Duncan's
New Multiple Range Test applied to the differences among female academic
non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of mean scores
achieved on the ACT-English scale.
Based on the results presented in Table 22, two subsets of cam-
puses tended to account for the significant variance ratio found for
the La-English sub-scale indicated in Table 21. Female academic non-
persisting students enrolled on the campuses located at LaCrosse and
Stout formulated one subset while female academic non-persisting stu-
dents enrolled on the campuses located at Stout, Whitewater, Stevens
Point, and River Falls formed the other subset. The variances which
appeared to account for the significant variance ratio tended to be
contributed by female academic non-persisting students who were enrolled
on the campuses of River Falls, Stevens Point, and Whitewater, since
these students tended to achieve a significantly higher mean score on
the ACT-Engliph scale than did their counterparts who were enrolled on
the campus located at Stout.
The multiple comparison of campuses on the basis of mean snores
achieved for the ACT-Social Science scale by female academic non-per-
sisters is presented in Table 23. These results seemed to indicate that
female academic non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses
located at Stevens Point, River Falls, and Whitewater tended to achieve
a significantly higher mean score on the Social Science sub-scale of the
ACT than did similar students who were enrolled on the campus located at
Stout. Female academic non-persisters who were enrolled on the campuses
located at LaCrosse, Whitewater, River Falls, and Stevens Point did not
differ significantly in terms of their mean score on this sub-scale of
the ACT. Furthermore, female academic non-persisting students who were
enrolled on the campuses located at Stout and LaCrosse did not differ
significantly.
...m
mire
b,...
...T
aim
imar
rref
,M11
1011
1111
1IM
MO
NO
MIN
P0,
VM
1111
;111
1111
11er
,
TABLE 22.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG
a ALE ACADEMIC NON-
PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES FOR THE ACT-ENGLISH SCALE
IP11
.O
..
LC
SW
SP
RF
Shortest
Campus
Means
(N =
58)
(N =
29)
(N = 194)
(N =
79)
(N =
16)
significant
ranges
,...*
)
0\
1.5.7
17.6
LC
15.7
1.9
(11.82)
S
17.6
W18
.3
SP
18.7
RF
19.5
18.3
18.7
19.5
2.6
3.0
3.8
(24.54)*
(24.54)*
(19.00)*
R2= 13.66
0.7
1.1
1.9
(4.97)
(7.15)
(8.63)
R = 14.24
0.4
1.2
(4.24)
(6.54)
R4
= 14.62
0.8
(4.12)
R5
= 14.92.
LC
S S
SP
RF
*Significant at the 0.01 level
TABLE 23.
DUNGAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIEDTO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE ACADEMIC
NON-
PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS
OF MEAN SCORES FOR THE ACT-SOCIAL SCIENCE
SCALE
S
Campus
Means
(N =
29)
S LC w RF
SP
LC
(N =
58)
(N = 194)
RF
SP
Shortest
(N =
16)
(N =
79)
significant
ranges
15.4
17.5
19.3
19.4
19.6
2.1
3.9
4.o
4.2
15.4
(13.06)
(27.73)*
(18.16)*
(27.30)*
1.8
1.9
2.1
17.5
(16.89)
(9.50)
(15.54)
0.1
0.3
19.3
(0.55)
(3.18)
0.2
19.4
(1.03)
19.6
R2= 16.28
R = 16.96
R4
= 17.43
R = 17.78
LC
WRF
SP
SLC
*Significant at the 0.01 level
The application of Duncan's New Multiple Range Test to the dif-ferences among female academic ron- persisters among campuses on the basisof mean scores achieved for the ACT-Natural Science scale tended to re-veal three subsets of campuses, These results are presented in Table 2I.
On the basis of the results presented in Table 24, female academ-ic non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campus located atStout tended to achieve a significantly lower mean score on the ACT-Natural Science scale than any other campus. Female academic non-per-sisting students who were enrolled on the campuses located at LaCrosse,Stevens Point, and River Falls did not differ significantly. Further-more, these same students who were enrolled on the campuses located atStevens Point, River Falls, and Whitewater did not differ significantly.However, female academic non-persisting students who were enrolled onthe campus located at Whitewater did achieve a significantly highermean score on the Natural Science sub-scale of the ACT than did theircounterparts who were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse.
Table 25 presents the results of the analysis of the comparisonof campuses in terms of the mean score achieved for the ACT-Compositescale by female academic non-persisting students. These results indi-cate that two subsets of campuses were contributing to the significantdifference among campuses.
The results presented in Table 25 tended to indicate that femaleacademic non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campus locatedat Stout did not differ significantly in terms of the.r achieved meanscore for the ACT-Composite scale from those enrolled on the campus lo-cated at LaCrosse. However, the female academic non-persisting studentat Stout did tend to achieve a significantly lower ACT-Composite meanscore than did similar students who were enrolled on the campuses lo-cated at Whitewater, Stevens Point, and River Falls.
The results of the differences among male academic non-persist-ing students among campuses on the basis of mean scores for the ACTscales are presented in Table 26. As the results in Table 26 indicate,significant differences were found among male academic non-persistingstudents among campuses on the basis of mean scores for four of thefive sub-scales of the ACT. Based on these results, the Mathematics,Social Science, Natural Science, and Composite sub-scales of the ACTseemed to differentiate among male academic non-persisting studentsamong campuses.
38
TABLE 24.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGETEST APPLIED TO THEDIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE ACADEMIC
NON-
PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONGCAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN
SCORES FOR THE ACT-NATURAL
SCIENCE SCALE
k_A
) o
Campus
Means
S
(N =
29)
LC
(N =
58)
15.4
17.7
15.4
2.3
(14.30)*
LC
17.7
SP
18.5
W
19.3
RF
19.7
S
LC
amm
iwom
ilmo.
m. M
111
SP
WRF
Shortest
(N =
79)
(N = 194)
(N =
16)
significant
ranges
18.5
19.3
19.7
3.1
3.9
4.3
(20.15)*
(27.73)*
(19.52)*
R2
= 13.83
0.8
1.6
2.0
(6.54)
(15.10)*
(10.00)
R2_7
14.56
0.8
1.2
(8.47)
(6.18)
R4
= 15.05
0.4
(2.18)
R5= 15.41
SP
RF
SP
RF
*Significant at the 0.05
level
TABLE 25.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE ACADEMIC NON-
PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES FOR THE ACT-COMPOSITE SCALE
SLC
WSP
RF
Shortest
Campus
Means
(N =
29)
(N =
58)
(N = 194)
(N =
79)
(N =
16)
significant
s LC
..-
wCD
SP
RF
15.6
17.0
18.1
15.6
___ __
1.4
(8.71)
2.5
(17.86)*
17.0
1.1
(10.38)
18.1
18.1
18.6
ranges
18.1
18.6
2.5
3.o
(16.25)*
(13.62)*
R2= 12.06
1.1
1.6
(8.99)
(8.00)
R3
= 12.56
o.o
0.5
(0.0)
(2.73)
R4
= 12.90
0.5
_____
(2.58)
R5
= 13.17
LC
WSP
RF
SLC
*Significant at the 0.01 level
TABLE 26. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES FOR THE ACT SCALES
ACT Source of. Sum of Degrees of Mean
Scales Variation Squares Freedom Square
Between grps 93 4English Within grps 13886 807
Total 13979 811
Maths-Between grps 282 4
maticsWithin grps 21941 807
Total 22223 811
SocialBetween grps 451 4
ScienceWithin grps 19112 807
Total 19563 811
NaturalBetween grps 304 4
ScienceWithin grps 20699 807
Total 21003 811
Between grps 253 -4--Composite Within grps 11350 807
Total 11603 811
23.417.2 1.36 NS
70.527.2 2.59 0.05
112.823.7 4.76 0.01
75.925.6 2.96 0.05
63.314.1 4.50 0.01
In order to determine the location of the variances among cam-puses found for each of the significant sub-scales of the ACT, Duncan's
New Multiple Range test was applied to the data.
Table 27 indicates the results of the application of Duncan'sNew Multiple Range Test to the differences among male academic non-per-sisting students among campuses on the basis of mean scores for the ACT -
Mathematics scale.
Based on these results, male academic non-persisting studentswho were enrolled on the campuses located at Whitewater and StevensPoint, while not differing significantly from each other in terms oftheir mean score for the ACT-Mathematics scale nor from their counter-parts enrolled on the campus located at Stout, did achieve a signifi-cantly higher mean score than similar students who were enrolled on thecampuses located at River Falls and LaCrosse.
The multiple comparison of male academic non-persisting students among campuses on the baSis of mean scores achieved on the ACT-Social Science scale is presented in Table 28. As these results indi-
cate, three subsets of campuses were identified.
According to these results there were no Significant differencesfound among male academic non-persisting students who were enrolled onthe campuses located at Stout, LaCrosse, and River Falls. There did not
appear to be any significant differences identified among male academic
non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses located atLaCrosse, River Falls, and Whitewater. Male academic non-persistingstudents who were enrolled on the campuses located at River Falls,Whitewater, and Stevens Point did not appear to differ significantly.
TABLE 27.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE ACADEMIC NON-
PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES FOR THEACT-MATHEMATICS SCALE
LC
Campus
Means
(N =
55)
(N = 123)
RF
17.7
17.7
18.5
0.8
(6.98)
LC
S SP
18.5
19.3
19.6
Woo
liptv
.00.
0.m
..4.
S
(N = 114)
SP
(N = 283)
- -
(N = 237)
19.7
- -
Shortest
signiftcant
ranges
19.3
19.6
1.6
1.9
2.0
(13.78)
(18.24)*
(18.94)*
R2
14
.47
0.8
1.1
1.2
(8.70)
(16.58)*
(15.26)*
R, = 15.23
0.3
0.4
(3.82)
(5.87)
R, = 15.75
'4
**1
19.7
RF
0.1
(1.61)
R = 16.12
LC
SSP
w
,... ......,
*Significant at the 0.05 level
TABLE 28.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THEDIFFERENCES AMONG MALE ACADEMIC NON-
PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEANSCORES FOR THE ACT-SOCIAL SCIENCE SCALE
Campus
SMeans
(N = 114)
18.5
S
18.5
LC
18.8
RF
18.8
w19.9
SP
20.4
LC
RF
WSP
Shortest
(N = 123)
(N =
55)
(N = 237)
(N = 283)
significant
ranges
18.8
0.3
(3.26)
18.8
19.9
20.4
0.3
1.4
1.9
(2.58)
(20.54)*
(24.21)*
R2= 17.74
0.0
1.1
1.6
(0.0)
(13.99)
(24.13)*
R3= 18.49
1.1
1.6
(10.31)
(15.36)
R4
= 18.99
0.5
(8.03)
R5
= 19.37
S
LC
RF
SP
RF
LC
RF
*Significant at the 0.01 level
tJ' 1
119,
4=li
The results did suggest that the male academic non-persisting student
who was enrolled on the campuses located at Whitewater and. Stevens Point
did achieve a significantly higher mean score on the ACT-Social Science
scale than did the male academic non-persisting student who was enrolled
on the campus located at Stout, Furthermore, the male academic non-per-
sisting student who was enrolled at Stevens Point tended to exceed sig-
nificantly his counterpart who was enrolled at LaCrosse,
Table 29 presents the application of Duncan's New Multiple Range
Test to the differences among male academic non-persisting students on
the basis of mean score achieved for the Natural Science sub-scale of
the ACT. Based on these results, male academic non-persisting students
who were enrolled at Stevens Point tended to achieve a significantly
higher mean score on the Natural Science sub-scale of the ACT than did
male academic non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses
located at LaCrosse and River Falls.
Two subsets of campuses tended to be formed when the means
achieved on the ACT-Composite scale by male academic non-persisting
students among campuses were compared. These results are presented in
Table 30.
According to these results, male academic non-persisting stu-
dents who were enrolled on the campus located at Stevens Point tended
to achieve a significantly higher mean score on the ACT-Composite scale
than did male academic non-persisting students who were enrolled at
River Falls and LaCrosse. However, there were no significant differ-
ences revealed among male academic non-persisting students who were en-
rolled on the campuses located at Stevens Point, Whitewater, and Stout.
Furthermore, th41-e were no significant differences indicated among male
academic non-pg.:Sisting students who were enrolled on the campuses lo-
cated at River Falls, LaCrosse, Stout, and Whitewater.
Differences Among Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students Among
Campuses. Since there were significant differences found between male
and female non-academic non-persisting students on the basis of mean
scores on the ACT scales, separate analyses were conducted on those ACT
scales where these significant differences were revealed.
Table 31 shows the differences among female non-academic non-
persisting students among campuses on the basis of mean scores on the
English, Mathematics, and Natural Science scales of the ACT. According
to the results presented in Table 31, there were no significant differ-
ences revealed among female non-academic non-persisting students among
campuses on the basis of mean scores for these sub-scales of the ACT.
TABLE 29.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE ACADEMIC NON-
PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES FOR THE ACT-NATURAL SCIENCE SCALE
LC
RF
WS
SP
Shortest
Campus
Means
(N = 123)
(N =
55)
(N = 237)
(N = 114)
(N = 283)
significant
ranges
LO
RF W
kn
S SP
19.5
19.6
20.5
20.5
21.2
0.1
19.5
(0.87)
1.0
(12.72)
1.0
(10.87)
1.7
(25.64)*
R2
= 14.02
19.6
0.9
(8.52)
0.9
(7.75)
1.6
(15.36)*
5_1.14177
20.5
0.0
(0.0)
0.7
(11.24)
R4
= 15.27
20.5
0.7
(8.94)
R5= 15.63
21.2
SP
LC
RF
*Significant at the 0.05 level
=11
/
1.11
1111
1111
1111
111W
''''"1
111M
PIE
W v
"'71
4111
1111
111W
7m07
,111
111M
inw
rFri
mrM
min
ev-a
wiim
irw
TABLE 30.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG MALE ACADEMIC NON-
PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OFMEAN SCORES FOR THE ACT-COMPOSITE SCALE
RF
Campus
Means
(N =
55)
LC
(N = 123)
18.2
i8.4
RF
0.2
18.2
(1.74)
LC
18.4
S18.6
w19.4
SP
19.7
S
(N = 114)
18.6
o.4
(3.44)
0.2
(2.17)
(N = 237)
SP
(N = 283)
Shortest
significant
ranges
19.4
19.7
1.2
(11.36)
1.5
(14.40)*
R2
= 1
3.52
1.0
(12.72)
1.3
(19.6o)*
R3
= 14.08
0.8
(11.7L)
1.1
(1L. 01)
=R = 14.47
0.3
(4.82)
R, = 14.76
___2
LC
SP
*Significant at the 0.01 level
TABLE 31, DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ENGLISH, MATHEMATICS,AND NATURAL SCIENCE SCALES OF THE ACT
ACT Source of Sum of Degrees of MeanF P
Scales Variation Squares Freedom Square
Between grps 104 4 25.9English Within grps 12345 747 16.5 1.57 NS
Total 12449 751
Mathe-Between grps 165 4 41.2
ma ticsWithin grps 23590 747 31.6 1.32 NS
Total 23755 751
NaturalBetween grps 100 4 24.9
ScienceWithin grps 18581 747 24.9 1.00 NS
Total 18681 751
The differences among male non-academic non-persisting studentsamong campuses on the basis of mean scores achieved on the English,Mathematics, and Natural Science sub-scales of the ACT are presented inTable 32. According to the results shown in Table 32, only the Englishsub-scale of the ACT tended to differentiate among male non-academicnon-persisting students among campuses. There were no significant dif-ferences indicated among male non-academic non-persisting studentsamong campuses on the basis of mean score achieved on the Mathematics
and Natural Science sub-scales of the ACT.
TABLE 32. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES FOR THE ENGLISH, MATHE-MATICS, AND NATURAL SCIENCE SCALES OF THE ACT
ACT Source of Sum of Degrees of MeanScales Variation Squares Freedom Square
Between.
English Within grps 14311 828 17.3 3.75 0.01
Total 14571 832
Mathe-matics
NaturalScience
Between grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotal
80 4 19.9
23305 828 28,2 0.71 NS
2 385 8 2211 52.8
22825 828 27.6 1.91 NS2 036 832
In the effort to discern the exact location of the cause of thesignificant variance ratio found among male non-academic non-persistingstudents among campuses on the ACT-English scale, Duncanis New MultipleRange Test was applied to the data. These results are presented inTable 33.
47
TABLE 33.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-
PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORES ON THE ACT-ENGLISH SCALE
RF
WS
SP
LC
Shortest
Campus
Means
(N = 145)
(N = 192)
(N = 172)
(N = 160)
(N = 164)
significant
ranges
16.8
17.4
17.5
18.0
18.5
RF
0.6
0.7
1.2
1.7
16.8
(7.70)
(8.78)
(14.56)
(21.05)*
111
Wo.i
0.6
17.4
(1.35)
(7.93)
(14.62)
S0.5
1.0
co
17.5
('6.43)
(12.96)
R2= 15.15
113
= 15.79
R1+= 16.22
SP
18.0
LC
18.5
RF
0.5
(6.36)
16.55
SP
LC
SP
*Significant at the 0.01 level
According to the results presented in Table 33t two subsets of
campuses were indicated. Male non-acaciend..c non-persisting students who
were enrolled cr., the campuses located. at Whitevater, Stout, Stevens
Point, and LaCrs.-sse did not appear to differ significantly in terms of
mean score on the AC English scale. Male non - academic non-persisting
students who were enrolled on the calTuses located at River Falls, White-
water, Stout, and Stevens Point comprised the second subset of campuses.
Th6 siplificant variance ratio indicated in Table 32 for theash sub-
scal-a of the ACT. tended to be isolated to the difference between male
non - academic nee.-persting students who were enrolled on the campuses
located at LaCrosse and River Falls, Male non-acadec non-persisting
students who were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse tended to
achieve a significantly higher mean score on the English sub-scale of
the ACT than did their counterparts who were enrolled on the campus lo-cated at aver Falls.
Since there were no significant differences between male and
female non-academic non-persisting students on the basis of the mean
scores achieved on the Social Science and Composite sub-scales of the
ACT, these two subgroups were --p=ed and comparisons were made for dif-
ferences among campuses. The results of this comparison are presented
in Table 34. According to the results presented in Table 34, there was
a significant difference among non-academic non-persisting students
among campuses on the basis of the mean scores achieved on these two
sub-scales.
TABLE 34, DIFFERENCES AMONG NON-ACADEKEC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG
CAITUSES ON :WE BASIS OF MEAN SCCRES ON ' SOCIAL SCIENCE AND COM-
POSME SCALES OF 'Nit: ACT
ACTScales
SocialScience
Source ofVariation
Sum of Degrees of Mean
Squares Freedom Square
Between grpsWithin grpsTotal
Composite
Between grpsWithin grpsTotal
3414494734o814
1752479824973
F P
4 85.3580 25.6 3.33 0.01
5844
58o 15.7 3.18 0.05584
Dtncants New Multiple Range Test was applied to the differences
among non-academic non-persisting students among campuses on the basis
of the mean score on the ACT-Social Science scale. The results of this
statistical application are presented in Table 35.
49
TABLE 35.
DUNCANIS NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG NON-ACADEMIC NON-
PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORE ON THE ACT-SOCIAL SCIENCS SCALE
Campus
Means
S
(N = 308)
RF
(N = 228)
20.6
20.6
S20.6
0.0
(0.0)
RF
20.6
LC
21.0
21.5
SP
21.8
SRF
LC= 355)
(N = 431)
SP
(N = 268)
21.0
21.5
Aw
rorr
omm
eonm
adot
ahoi
sra
21.8
Shortest
significant
ranges
11.1
1110
1111
1111
10.1
1111
0.4
0.9
1.2
(7.23)
(17.06)*
(20.32)*
R2
= 14.03
0.4
0.9
1.2
(6.66)
(15=53)*
(18.84)*
R = 14.76
3--
0.5
0.8
(9.87)
(13.98)
R4
= 15,27
0.3
(5.45)
R = 15.63
LC
SP
Lc
*Significant at the 0.05 level
1011
111.
11
According to the results shown in Table 35. two subsets of cam-
puses were formulated. One subset consisted of campuses located at Stout,
River Falls, and LaCrosse, while tae second subset of campuses consisted
of those located at LaCrosse, Whitewater, and Stevens Paint. These re-
sults tended to indicate that non--academic non-persisting students vino
were enrolled at Stevens Point and linitewater tended. to achieve a ::::iuti-ficantly higher mean score on the ACT-Social Science scale than did their
counterparts who were enrolled on the campuses located at Stout and River
Falls. However, non - academic non-persisting students who were enrolled
on the campuses located. at Stevens Point and Whitewater did not appear todiffer significantly from each other nor from their counterparts who wereenrolled at LaCrosse. Non-academic non-persisting students who were en-rolled on the campuses located at Stout and River Falls tended to have a
cantly lower mean score than their counterparts on campuses lo-cated at Ifaitewater and Stevens Point. but did not vary significantly from
others locatad cn the campus at LaCrosse.
Table 36 presents the results of the application of Duncants New
Multiple Range Test to the differences among non-academic non -persistingstudents on the basis of mean scores for the ACT-Composite seals.
Based on the results presented in Table 36, there did not appearto be any significant differences among non-acadethc non-persisting stu-dents who were enrolled on the campuses located at River Falls, LaCrosse,
Stout, and Whitewater in terms of mean score for the Composite sub-scale
of the ACT. While non-academic non-persisting students who were en-
rolled on the campus located at Stevens Point tended to achieve a signi-
ficantly higher mean score on the ACT-Composite scale than their coun-
terparts at River Falls and LaCrosse, these students did not di ffer sig-
nificantly from those non-academic non-persisting students who were en-
rolled on the campuses located at Stout and Whitewater.
Snynmary of Differences Among Campuses on the Basis of ACT Scores.
Since there were significant differences revealed among persisting and
non-persisting students as well as between male and female students on
all campuses, separate analysis for the six subgroups was necessary to
determine if there were significant differences among campuses on the
basis of mean scores achieved for each of the five sub-scales of the
ACT. With the exception of the Natural Science sub-scale of the ACT,
all other scales tended to discriminate among campuses for male and fe-
male persisting students. In terms of academic non-persisting students,
the Mathematics sub-scale of the ACT did not discriminate among female
academic non-persisting students among campuses and the English sub-
scale did not discriminate among male academic non-persisting students
among campuses. All other scales tended to reflect a significant dif-
ference among academic non-persisting students among campuses. There
were only three scales which tended to reveal any significant difference
among campuses on the basis of mean scores achieved on the ACT scales by
non-academic non-persisting students. While the English, Mathematics,
and Natural Science sub-scales of the ACT tended to discriminate between
male and female non-academic non-persisters, only the aigIlish sub-scale
tended to reflect significant differences among campuses for the male
non-academic non-persisting student among campuses. The Social Science
and Composite sub-scales of the ACT tended to be discriminate factors
among non-academic: non-persisting students among campuses.
51
TABLE 36.
DUNCANIS NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG NON-ACADEMIC NONE -
PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN SCORE ON THE ACT-COMPOSITE SCALE
RF
SP
Campus
Means
(N = 228)
(N = 355)
(N = 308)
(N = 431)
(N = 268)
RF
19.9
20.3
20.3
20.5
21,0
onli.
"
Shorts :It
signifioant
ranges
...e.
a....
.....r
......
i.O.W
......
..e...
mom
ettr
ifelm
eom
iam
emeo
rolo
.o.r
.r...
.4...
......
....0
0..*
.e...
.111
.0r
40P
luvW
ww
ww
wW
Ipa
19.9
14. 0
.10.
4%.
0.4
o.4
0.6
1.1
(6.66)
(6.47)
(io.35)
(17.27)*
R2
= 10.97
I20.3
0.0
(o.(d)
S20
.3
0.2
0.7
(3,95)
(12.23)*
En = 1t.55
tom
....1
106,
11
0.2
0.7
(3,79)
(11.85)
R4 = 11.94
w20.5
SP
21.0
0.5
(9.08)
RC = 12.23
*Significant at the 0.05 level
SW
SP
IyC
Sw
Analysis of High School Achievement
A second area of investigation was to seek out differences amongpersisting and non-persisting students among campuses on the basis ofprevious high school achievement. The total student sample had partici-pated in the providing of these data through responding to the AmericanCollege Testing Program (ACT). The average grade achieved in high schoolthat was indicated by each student on this instrument was used as the es-timate of previous high school achievement of the persisting and non-persisting students.
Table 37 indicates the differences among persisting and non-per-sisting students for all campuses on the basis of mean grade pointachieved in high school. As the results in Table 37 indicate, therewere highly significant differences revealed among the compared groupsof students.
TABLE 37. DIFFERENCES AMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS FORALL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL
Source of Sum of Degrees of MeanVariation Squares Freedom Square
Between grps 256 2 128.00Within grps 2670 6821 0.39Total 2926 6823
327.9 0.001
The results of the application of Duncan's New Multiple RangeTest to the differences reflected in Table 37 are presented in Table 38.The results of this multiple comparison suggested that there were threedistinct subsets of students which contributed to the highly significantvariance ratio indicated in Table 37.
Based on these results, there appeared to be a definite hierarchyof high school achievement among the compared groups of students. Asmight be expected, the persisting students seemed to achieve a signifi-cantly higher grade average in high school than the non-persisting stu-dent. Furthermore, the academic non-persisting student tended to indi-cate a significantly lower average grade achieved in high school thaneither the non-persisting student who withdrew from the university fornon-academic reasons or the persisting student.
53
TABLE 38. DUNCAN:S.14Di MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIE) TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PMISTDIG STUDENTS ON ALL CA}IPUSES ON THEBASIS OF MAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL
NPA NPOPersist- = 1153) = 1525) (N 41.40) Shortest
Meansence
' significant
2.08 2.45 2.61ranges
NPA 0.37 0.532.08 (13.31)* (22.27)* R
2= 2.26
NPO 0.1624'5 (7.55)* R
3= 2.35
P2.61 R = 2.42
NPONPA
P
*Significant at the 0.01 level
Differences Among Male and Female Students and High SchoolAchievement. Comparisons were made between male and female students onthe basis of the average grade achieved in high school in order to dis-cern if there were any significant differences between these two studentsubgroups. Since significant differences had been identified among per-sisting and non-persisting students, separate analyses were made for thethree categories of persisting and non-persisting students in order todetermine the significance of any differences between male and femalemembers of the student sample.
The results of the analysis for differences between male and fe-male persisting and non-persisting students are presented in Tables 39through 41. As these results indicate, there were highly significantdifferences found between male and female persisting and non-persistingstudents in terms of their average grade achieved in high school.
Based on the results indicated in Tables 39 through 41, the fe-male student, regardless of the campus and persistence status, tendedto achieve a higher grade point average in high school than did her malecounterpart.
54
TABLE 39. DHATtENCES BETWEEN MALE AND MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS ONALL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF AVERAGE GRADE ACHIEVED IN HIM SCHOOL
Mean d N - 1M F M F II F t P
2.17 2.78 0..63 0.63 2341 1796 15.69 0.01
TABLE 110. DIFTERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTINGSTUDENTS ON ALL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF AVERAGE GRADE ACHIEVED INHIGH SCHOOL
Mean d N - 1M F M F M F
t P
2.03 2.17 0.47 0.51 782 379 4.46 0.01
TABLE 41. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-PERSIST-ING STUDENTS ON ALL CAMPUSES ON lair; BASIS OF AVERAGE GRADE ACHIEVED IN
HIM SCHOOL
Mean d N - 1141 F M F M F
t
2.28 2.64 0.65 0.65 79.5 729 11.28 0.01
55
Differences Among Campuses in Terms of High School Achievement.Since significant differences were found between male and female stu-dents as well as among persisting and non-persisting students, the totalgroup was partitioned into six subgroups. The purpose of this partition-
ing prior to attempting to discern if there were significant differencesamong campuses was to ensure that any significant differences found
among campuses could not be attributed to the differences between maleand female students nor among persisting and non persisting students.
Differences hnong Persisting Students in Terms of High School
Achievement. The results presented in Table 42 indicate the differencesamong female persisting students among campuses on the basis of mean
grade point achieved in high school. As the results presented in Table
42 indicate, there were significant differences found among campuses.
TABLE 42. DIFFERENCES AMONG a PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSESON ME BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT AfffIEVED IN BIG H SCHOOL
Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean
Variation Squares Freedom Square
Between grps 13.3 4 3.33Within grps 702.1 1786 0.39 8.54 0.01
Total 715.4 1790
The data presented in Table 42 was further analyzed throve) theapplication of Duncan's New Multiple Range Test to determine the reasonsfor the significant variance ratio. These results are presented in
Table 43.
Based on the results of the application of Duncan's New MultipleRange Test, two subsets of campuses seemed to be revealed. Female per-
sisting students who were enrolled on the campuses located at Stout,Whitewater, and River Falls did not seem to differ significantly interms of their previous high school achievement. Furthermore, femalepersisting students who were enrolled on the campuses at River Falls,Stevens Point, and LaCrosse did not appear to differ significantly.However, female persisting students who were enrolled on the campuseslocated at Stevens Point and LaCrosse, while not differing significantlyfrom each other, did appear to achieve a significantly higher gradepoint average in high school than did their counterparts who were en-rolled on the campuses located at Stout and Whitewater.
56
TABLE 43.
DUNCAN1 S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTING STUDENTS
AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL
SW
RF
SP
aew
o...a
new
,rl..
1ww
awlo
r
Campus
Means
(N = 231)
(N
545)
(N = 194)
(N = 383)
(N = 435)
4wro
ilmm
oI.w
"/.M
taftw
I.mia
rtw
m..*
4.0.
2.70
2.74
2.75
2.87
2.89
Shortest
significant
ranges
S
2.70
w
o.o4
0.0
0.17
0.19
(0.72)
(0.73)
(2.87)*
(3.30)*
1111
1.11
.110
1111
1111
111M
ON
III!1
111.
1011
1111
111.
1111
1111
1%,
2.74
11.4
4R.,2= 2.26
......
fti0.01
0.13
0.15
(0.17)
(2.76)*
(3.29)*
R3= 2.35
RF
2.75
SP
2.87
LC
2.89
0.12
(1.92)
0.14
(2.13)
R - 2.42
4...
ww
...../
.deo
......
..0.6
1401
*.1.
41**
1101
14.0
1.01
1..N
.....M
me.
.WO
1..
Ow
.. ea
A.M
. .11
40.O
..Vs
flew
w.
0.02
(0.40)
R2447
15
.ma4
=61
.111
10.0
110
.wW
....4
0mi=
...M
.O01
4.14
ft .w
ww
MO
.Nel
leat
r.f..
..w.im
pma
a.
S
4141
=11
*11.
1111
1.1.
....1
.11.
01M
IMIN
/..W
erM
eMr.
,/MO
Y01
101.
110.
1110
0110
MV
OIN
N V
ION
ON
IMM
et.O
.111
144f
tam
MIA
NO
NIM
IJO
I
WRF
SP
LC
*Significant at the 0.01 level
Table 14 presents the differences among male persisting students
among campuses cn the basis of mean Grade point achieved in high school.
As these remllts idicate, significant differences were indicated among
campuses.
TABLE 44. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON
THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL
11,
Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean
Variation Squares Freedom SquareF P
Between grps 18.5 4 4.62Within grps 905.9 2341 0.39 11.94 0.01
Total 924.4 2345
The results of the multiple comparison of the'mean grade pointsachieved in high school by male persisting students among campuses arepresented in Table k5. As these results indicate, two distinct subsets
of campuses were revealed.
According to the results presented in Table 45, male persistingstudents who were enrolled on the campuses located at Stout, Whitewater,and LaCrosse did not differ significantly in terms of their previous
high school achievement. Male persisting students who were enrolled onthe campuses located at Stevens Point and River Falls, while not differ-ing significantly from each other, appeared to achieve a significantlyhigher mean grade point in high school than their counterparts who wereenrolled on the campuses located at Stout, Whitewater, and LaCrosse.
Differences Among Academic Non-Persisting Students in Terms of
Hip School Achievement. Significant differences were found among fe-male academic non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of
mean grade point achieved in high school. These results are presented
in Table 46.
TABLE 46. DIFFEP.ENCES AMONG MALE ACADEMIC NON - PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL
Source of Sum of Degrees of MeanVariation Squares Freedom Square
Between grps 2.2 4 0.56
Within grps 98.3 368 0.27 2.08 0.05
Total 100.5 372
In an effort to account for the significant variance ratio thatwas reflected in Table 46, Duncan's New Multiple Range Test'was appliedto these differences. The results of this multiple comparison aro pre-
sented in Table 47.
58
TABLE 45.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING STU-
DENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL
Campus
Means
S
(N = 216)
(N = 681)
1,0
(N = 502)
2.33
2.41
2.45
S
2.33
flol.1
1111
1111
.011
Ilim
e
0.08
(1.45)
0.12
(2.09)
2.24
40.
04(0
.96)
LC
2.4.
5
SP
2.56
RF
2.58
SP(N = 568)
RF
(N= 373)
2.56
1101
100.
111.
111.
1111
2.58
Shortest
significant
ranges
yolig
aiim
e1.1
9.10
MM
INM
lagi
liS
INIO
MM
NIN
OM
O 1
1141
MO
VII.
0.23
0.25
(4.07)*
(4.13)*
R2= 2.29
0.15
0.17
(3.73)*
(3.73)*
R a= 2.39
.11.
1111
1dilM
I.M00
01.1
1101
./100
1140
,111
111I
NIN
IMIN
MA
MM
OM
IM00
0100
10.1
10
0.11
(2.54)*
0.13
(2.69)*
0.02
(0.42)
R4=
R = 2.51
SL
C
SP
RF
.111
I
*Significant at the 0.01 level
TABLE 47.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG FEMALE ACADEMIC NON-
PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADEPOINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL
S
Campus
Means
(N =
49)
S RF
ON
SP
cl
W LC
RF
SP
(N =
12)
(N = 77)
(N = 192)
2.07
2.14
2.17
2.19
2.07
0.07
(0.31)
0.10
(0.77)
0.12
(0.94)
2.14
0.03
(0.14)
0.05
(0.24)
2.17
0.02
(0.21)
2.19
2.35
S
RF
SP
RF
SP
*Significant at the 0.05 level
LC
(N = 57)
0.01
. Mai
o=
=.1
1
2.35
Shortest
significant
ranges
...04
0101
10~
1114
1,11
1=11
1. 9
.411
0010
0011
1111
110.
1101
.11
0.28
44
(2.03)*
R2 =
1
0.21
(0.93)
R = 1.52
11=
MA
IMIO
MM
ININ
MO
OM
MIO
NIM
MO
IN.
0.18
(1.1
+6)
R1+
= - 1.57
0.16
(1.50)
Rg
1.61
1...001.1.10.1010
LC
Based on the results presented in Table 47, female academic non-persisting !tudents vrho were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrossetended to achieve a sipailicatnly higher mean grade point average inhigh school than did their counterparts who were enrolled on the campuslocated at Stout. However, the female academic non-parsisting studentwho was enrolled at LaCrosse did not differ siglificantly in terms ofmean grade point achieved in high school from similar students who wereenrolled on the campuses located at River Falls, Stevens Point, andWhitewater. The female academic non persisting student who was enrolledon the campus located at Stout did not differ significantly from similarstudents who were enrolled on the campuses located at River Falls, Ste-vens Point, and Whitewater in terms of previous high school achievement.
Table 48 preEents the differences among male academic non-per-sisting students among campuses on the basis of mean grade pointachieved in high school.
TABLE 48. DriFERENCES .AMONG MALE ACADEMIC NON--PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONGCP.14F'USES ON THE PASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL
Source of Sum of Degrees of MeanVariation Squares Freedom Square
Between, grps 1.5 4 0.38Within grps 103.7 782 0.13 2.9 0.05Total 105.2 786
Since there were significant differences found among campuses,Duncan's New Multiple Range Test was applied to the data in an effort todiscern the location of the variance. These results are presented inTable 49.
The results presented in Table 49 indicate that two distinctsubsets of campuses were formulated. Male academic non-persistingstudents who were enrolled on the campuses located at Whitewater, La-Crosse, Stevens Point, and River Falls did not appear to differ signi-ficantly from each other in terms of previous high school achievement.However, male academic non-persisting students who were enrolled on allof these campuses tended to achieve a significantly higher mean gradepoint average than did their counterparts who were enrolled on the cam-pus located f,t Stout.
61
TABLE 49.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE ACADEMIC NON-
PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL
Campus
S w LC
SP
RF
SW
LC
Means
(N = 108)
(N = 230)
(N = 119)
=an
......
....m
. "SP
RF
(N = 270)
(N =
53)
AlIm
imm
aboo
N11
1.
Shortest
significant
rang0t7
1.93
2.03
2.06
2.06
2.07
0.10
0.13
0.13
0.14
1.93
0441
....1
11M
11.1
10.
(1.21)*
(1.38)4
(1.61)*
(1.18)*
= 0.99
0.03
0.03
0.04
2.03
(0.38)
(0.47)
(0.37)
11,1
1.05
0.00
0.01
2.06
(0.00)
(0.09)
R4= 1.09
0.01
2.06
(0.09)
R, = 1.11
2.07
imill
.410
1411
01.1
04
S
rl 1.
4.m
....
LC
SP
RF
*Significant at the 0.05 level
110.
1/0
11*
Differences AmongyonAeademic Non-Persisting Students Among
Campuses in Terms of 1iigh School Achievement. Female non-academic non-
persisting students among campuses were compared on the basis of mean
grade point achieved in high school. Significant differences were found
among these students among campuses and the results of this analysis are
presented in Table 50.
TABLE 50. DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS
AMONG CAMPUSES ON ME BASIS OF THE MAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH
SCHOOL
Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean
Variation Squares Freedom. SquareF P
Between grps j.6 4 1.14
Within grps 312.6 730 0.43 2.65 0.01
Total 317.2 734
Since significant differences were found among female non-academic
non-persisting students among campuses, Duncan's New Multiple Range Test
was applied to the data in an effort to discern the location of the vari-
ance. The results of this statistical application are shown in Table 51.
According to the results indicated in Table 51, two subsets of
campuses were developed. Female non-academic non-persisting students
who were enrolled on the campuses located at Whitawater, River Falls,
Stout, and Stevens Point formed one subset of campuses. Female non-
academic non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses lo-
cated at River Falls, Stout, Stevens Point, and LaCrosse comprised the
second subset of campuses. These results indicated that the significant
variance ratio which had been revealed in Table 50 could be attributed
to the differences between female non-academic non-persisting students
enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse and those were enrolled on
the campus located at Whitewater. Femzle non-academic non-persisting
students who were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse tended to
achieve a significantly higher mean grade point average in high school
than did similar students who were enrolled on the campus at Whitewater.
63
I 4 1----7.1
w-41
6-0
iimi)
awl
Mil
OM
RIm
mo
TABLE 51.
DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIEDTO THE DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE NON-ACADEMIC
NON-
PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE
BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH
SCHOOL
111.
111.
001M
0411
1011
1.11
0101
1110
04
WRF
SSP
LC
Shortest
Campus
Means
(N = 231)
(N =
79)
(N = 132)
(N = 106)
(N = 182)
significant
ranges
2.78
°AN
2.59
2.62
2.64
2.70
W2.59
0.03
(0.33)
0.04
(0.52)
0.11
(1.05)
RF
2.62
0.02
(0.20)
0.08
(0.76)
S
2.64
0.06
(0.65)
SP
2.70
LC
2.78
SP
RF
SSP
. \ 1MIR
I.I.M
.Trf
t
M 0
040.19
(3.25)*
R2= 2.40
P00
0,16
(1.68)
R = 2.51
0.14
(1.73)
R4
= 2.57
..11M
M~
11
0.08
(0.93)
R. = 2.63
LC
*Significant at the 0.2.01 level
=01
6Y.
Table 52 presents the differences among male non-academic non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of mean grade pointachieved in high scilooi. As the results presented in Table 52 indicate,there were no significant differences found among male non-academic non-persisting students among campuses:
TABLE 52. DIFFERENCES AMONG NAV; NON-ACADIMC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAFTUSES ON THE BASIS OF MEAN GRADE POINT ACHIEVED IN HIGH SCHOOL
Source of Sum of Degrees of MeanVariation Squares Freedom Square
Between grps 1.1 4 0.27Within grps 276.8 791 0.35 0.77 NSTotal 277.9 795_
Summary of Differences Among Campuses in Terms of High SchoolAchievement, Significant differences were found among campuses in termsof mean grade point achieved in high school by male and female persist-ing and academic non-persisting students. Significant differences werefound among campuses among female non-academic non-persisting studentsbut not among male non-academic non-persisting students in terms ofmean grade point achieved in high school.
Analysis of College Achievement
A. purpose of this investigation was to seek out differencesamong persisting and non-persisting students on the basis of collegeachievement. College achievement was defined in terms of the totalnumber of credits earned, credits attempted, and grade points achievedby the persisting and non-persisting students among campuses.
One of the five campuses_ investigated, River Falls, based theiracademic year on three quarters rather than two semesters. Because ofthis variance, River Falls was withdrawn from these series of analyses.
Since significant differences had been indicated among persist-ing and non-persisting subgroups as well as between male and femalestudents among campuses on the basis of previous variables, six sub-groups were identified for the analysis of each of the achievementvariables. The results of these analyses are presented according topersisting and non-persisting student status.
Differences Among Persisting Students Among Campuses. Table53 presents the differences among male persisting students among cam-puses on the basis of credits earned, credits attempted, and gradepoints achieved in college. As the results in Table 53 indicate, sig-nificant differences were found among male persisting students among
65
"T.`
41,
:
campuses on the basis of credits earned and cI-edits attempted. However,no significant differences were found among these same students withregard to grade points achieved.
TABLE 53. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSESON tte: BASIS OF CREDITS EARNED, CREDITS ATTEMPTED, AND GRADE POINTSACHIEVED
VariableSource ofVariation
Sum of Degrees of MeanSquares Freedam Square
F P
Creditsearned
Creditsattempted
Gradepointsachieved
Between grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWit} in grpsTotal
2269.7 340543.2 202742812.9 2030
756.620.0 37.8 0,01
1969.6 3 656.530430.8 2027 15.0 43.7 0.0132400.4 203012541.2
745309.7
7850.9
3 418.12027 376.7 1.11 NS20 0
The results of the application of Duncan's New Multiple RangeTest to the differences reflected in Table 53 on the basis of creditsearned is presented in Table 54. According to these results, threedistinct subgroups of students were identified.
Male persisting students who were enrolled on the campus lo-cated at LaCrosse tended to earn a significantly lower mean number ofcredits earned than did similar students who were enrolled on the cam-puses located at Stevens Point, Whitewater, and Stout. While theredid not appear to be any significant differences among male persistingstudents enrolled on the campuses located at Stevens Point and Stout,nor among male persisting students who were enrolled at Stout andWhitewater, male persisting students enrolled on the campus locatedat Whitewater tended to earn a significantly higher mean number ofcredits earned than did their counterparts who were enrolled on thecampus at Stevens Point.
TABLE 54. DUNCAN2S NEW MULTUIE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON TBE BASIS OF CREDITS
EARNED
LC SF W S Shortest
Campus (N = 486) (N = 581) (N = 684) (N = 280) significantranges
Beans 28,44 30,06 31.07 31.12
LC 1.62 2.63 2.68
28.44 (33.91)* (62.69)* (50.52)* R2 = 16.39
SP 1.01 1.06
30.06 (20.28)* (11.01) R3 = 17.08
0.05
31.07 (9.99) R4 = 17.55
S
31.12
LC
SP
*Significant at the 0.01 level
Table 55 presents the results of the application of Duncan'sNew Multiple Range Test to the differences among male persisting stu-
dents among campuses on the basis of credits attempted. The results
reflected in Table 55 tend to parallel those indicated in Table 54.
In each instance three distinct subsets of students were identified.
Again, male persisting students who were enrolled on the campus located
at Whitewater tended to achieve a significantly higher mean number of
credits attempted than did their counterparts who were enrolled on the
campus located at Stevens Point. Furthermore, male persisting students
who were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse tended to achieve a
significantly lower mean number of credits attempted than did theircounterparts on any of the other campuses. Male persisting students
who were enrolled on the campus located at Stout did not differ signi-
ficantly from their counterparts who were enrolled on the campus lo-
cated at either Whitewater or Stevens Point.
67
TABLE 55. DUNCAN2S NEW MULTUIE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCES
AMONG MALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF CREDITS
ATTEMPTED
Lc
Campus (N = 486) (N
SP- 581) (N = 684) (N = 280)
Shortestficant
Means29.28 30.64 31.66 31.88
ranges
LC29.28
1.36 2.38 2.60
(28.46)* (56.74)* (49.01)* R2 = 14.09
SP 1.02 1.24
30.64 (20.48)* (12.88) R3
= 14.69
W 0.22
31.66 (4.40) R4 = 15.09
S31.88
LC
S W
SP
*Significant at the 0.01 level
Table 56 indicates the differences among female persisting stu-dents among campuses on the basis of credits earned, credits attempted,
and grade points achieved in the various universities. According to
the results presented in Table 56, significant differences were found
among female persisting students among campuses on the basis of all
three achievement variables.
TABLE 56. DiMEENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSESON THE BASIS OF CREDITS EARNED, CREDITS ATTEMPTED, AND GRADE POINTS
ACHIEVED
VariableSource ofVariation
Sum of Degrees ofSquares Freedom
MeanSquare
Creditsearned
Creditsattempted
Gradepointsachieved
Between grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotal
600.3 335033.5 163635633.8 1639
200.021.4
1352.6 331295.8 1636
32648.4 1639
4826.0 3800541.9 1636
80 '6 16
68
450.919.1
1608.7489.3
F P
9.35 0.01
23.60 0.01
3.28 0.05
The application of Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied tothe differences among female persisting students among campuses on thebasis of credits earned revealed three distinct subsets of students.These results are presented in Table 57.
According to the results presented in Table 57, female persist-ing students who were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse tendedto earn a significantly lower mean number of credits earned than didtheir counterparts on any of the other campuses. Female persistingstudents who were enrolled on the campus located at Stevens Point, whiletending to earn a significantly higher mean number of credits earnedthan their counterparts enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse,tended to achieve a significantly lower mean number of credits earnedthan did similar students who were enrolled on the campuses located atWhitewater and Stout. There were no significant differences revealedamong female persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses lo-cated at Whttewater and Stout even though each of these two subgroupsof female persisting students tended to earn a significantly highermean number of credits earned than did similar students enrolled on thecampuses located at LaCrosse and Stevens Point.
TABLE 57. DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO TEE DIFFERENCESAMONG FEMALE PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OFCREDITS EARNED
LC SPShortest
Campus (N = 435) (N = 390) (N = 547) (N = 268)Means
significant
30.22 30.31 31.55 31.60ranges
LC 0.09 1.33 1.3830.22 (18.25)* (29.27)* (25.13)* R2 = 16.83
SP 1.24 1.2930.31 (26.46)* (22.99)* R
3= 17.54
0.05
31.55 (9.48) R = 18.02
S
31.60
SP
IC
*Significant at the 0.01 level
69
1[1M1,111.
There were two distimt subgroups of students :Identified when
DuncanTs New Multiple Range Test was applied to the differencas among
female persisting students among campuses on the basis of credits at-
tempted. These reFults are presented in Table 58.
According to the results presented in Table 58, female persist-
ing students who were enrolled on the campuses located at LaCrosse andStevens Point did not differ sig,nificantly in terms of the mean number
of credits attempted. However, these same students tended to achievea significantly lower mean number of credits attempted than did theircounterparts who were enroll.ed on the campuses located at Stout and
Whitewater. Female persisting students who were enrolled on the cam-puses located at Stout, andiCite-water did not vary significantly.
TABLE 58. DUNCANTS NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO TEE DIFFERENCES
AMONG FEMATR PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OFCREDITS ATTEMPTED
CampusMeans
LC30.82
SP30.85
S31,92
32.07
LC SP
(N = 435) (N = 390) (N = 268) (N = 547)Shortestsignificantranges
30.82 30.8.5 31,92 32.07
0.03 1.10 1.25
(6.08) (20,03)* (27.,51)* R2 = 15488
1.07 1.22(19.07)* (26.03)* R3 =16.55
0.15(2.84) R4 = 17.00
S
LC SP
*Significant at the 0,01 level
Table 59 presents the results of the application of Duncan? s
New Multiple Range Test to the differences among female persisting stu-
dents among campuses on the basis of the total grade points achieved
while enrolled on the various campuses investigated. According to
these results, three distinct subgroups of students were revealed.
The results presented in Table 59 tended to indicate that stu-
dents enrolled on the campus located at Whitewater tended to achieve a
significantly higher mean number of grade points achieved while enrolled
1 70
than did the female persisting, student ittio was enrolled on the campuslocated at Stevens Point. However, female persisting students -who wereenrolled on the campus located at Whitewater did not va.ry sigelficantliyfrom similar students who were enrol3.ed on the campuses located atStout and LaCrosse w4..,th regard to mean number of grade points achieved.Female persisting students who were enrolled on the campus located atStout seemed to achieve a significantly higher mean number of gradepoints while enrolled than did si a.r students who were enrolled on thecampus located at LaCrosse. Female persisting students who were en-rolled on the campus located at Stevens Point did not seem to vary sig-nificantly from their counterparts siho were enrolled on the campuseslocated at LaCrosse and St-out.
TABLE 59. DUNCAN1S Mil MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO TETE DJAMOCESAMONG FEMALE PERSISTING STUD M AMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF GRADEPOINTS ACMEVED
CampusMeans
SP LC(N = 390) (N=435) (N = 547)
76.54 77.29 79.39
S(N = 268)
83.16
Shortestsignificantranges
SP76.54
0.75 2,85(15.21) (60.82)*
6.62(5177) R2 = 61*32
LC77.29
2.10 5,87(46.22) (106.89)* R3 = 6155
79.39 NINN (58.21) 114 = 66.74
S83.16
ammelmal
"=11111/110=1,4=M1.1111."
11111
S
SP S
LC SP
*Significant at the 0.05 level
Differences .Among Academic 2on-Patmgistin Students Asong. Cam-puses.. The differences among male academic non-persisting studentsamong campuses on the basis of credits earned, credits attempted, andgrade points achieved while enrolled in the various institutions inves-tigated are presented ,n Table 60. According to these results, therewere significant differences found among male academic non-persistingstudents among campuses on the basis of all of the college achievementvariables.
71
1.
TABLE 60. DIFFEREXES AMONG MAT.E ACADETTIC NON-PERSISTING STUDEVIS AMONGCAITUSE3 ON tniE BASIS OF CRP= EARL, GROUTS MEM:TED, AND GRADEPOINTS ACHIEVED
VariableSource ofVariation
Sum of Degrees of MeanSquares Freedom Square
Creditsearned
Creditsattempted
Gradepointsachieved
Between cpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grps
grpsTotal
4704.652627.957432.53882.5
29395.1
33277.614917.2
236516.0
251433.2
381013
1568.1
3810813
3810813
1294.236.3
4972.4291.9
F P
24.1 0.01
35.7 0.01
17.03 0.01
Three distinct subgroups of students were revealed when DuncantsNew Multiple Range Test was applied to the data regarding the differ-ences among male academic nom-persisting students among campuses on thebasis of mean credits earned. These results are presented in Table 61.
TABLE 61. DUNCAN'S NEW MUITIPLE RANGE TEST APPLiii) TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG MLLE ACADMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAE:USES ON nitBASIS OF CREDITS EARNED
Campus
Means
LC(N = 178)
SP(N = 282)
16.88 19.55
LC16.88
2.67(3941)'f
SP
19.55
21,31
S24.45
(N = 224) (N = 130)
21.31 24.45
Shortestsignificantranges
4.43 7.57(59.45)* (9273)* R2 = 29.36
1.76 4.90(27.79) (65.36)* R3 = 30.59
3.14(40.25)* R4 = 31.43
SP
IC
S
*Significant at the 0.01 level
72
According to t'rese results, male academic non-persisters whowere enrolled on the campus located at Stout achieved a significantlyhigher mean number of credits earned than their counterparts who wereenrolled on the campuses lotted at LaCrosse, Stevens Point, andWhitewater. Male academic non-persisting students uho were enrolledon the campuses located at Stevens Point and Wnitewater did not ap-pear to differ significantly on the basis of mean credits earned eventhough they did achieve a significantly lower mean number of creditsearned than did their counterparts on the campus located at Stout anda significantly higher mean number of credits earned than did similarstudents who were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse. Maleacademic non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campus lo-cated at LaCrosse tended to earn a significantly lower mean number ofcredits earned than did similar students who were enrolled on eitherof tie three other campuses.
The differences among male academic non-persisting studentsamong campuses on the basis of mean number of credits attempted wereanalyzed utilizing Duncan's New Multiple Range Test. These resultsare presented in Table 62.
TABLE 62. DUNCAN'S NEST MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPL,IED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG MALE AultIZZiEr.' NON-PERSISTDIG STUDENTS AMONG CAI' FUSES ON MEBASIS OF CREDITS ATTalPliii
CampusMeans
LC(N = 178)
SP(N = 282)
24,44 25.71
LC24.44
1.27(18.75)
SP25.71
29.53
S
29.83
Shortest(N = 224) (N = 130) significant29.53 29.83
ranges
5.09 5.39(68.31)* (66.03)* R2 = 20.98
3,82 4.12(60.31)* (54,96)* R = 21.86
0.30(3.85) R.4 = 22.46
w S
LC SP
*Significant at the 0.01 level
73
As the results presented in Table 62 indicate, two distinctsubgroups of students were indicated. Hale academic non-persistingstudents who were enrolled on the campuses located at Stout andWhitewater did not vary significantly from each other on the basis ofmean number of credits attempted. However, these same students whowere enrolled on the campuses located at Whitewater and Stout tendedto achieve a significantly higher mean number of credits attemptedthan did their counterparts who were enrolled on the campuses locatedat LaCrosse and Stevens Point. Male academic non-persisting studentswho were enrolled on the campuses located at Stevens Point and La-Crosse, while not differing significantly from each other, did achievea significantly lower mean number of credits attempted than did simi-lar students who were enrolled on the other two campuses.
Table 63 presents the results of the application of DuncantsNew Multiple Range Test to the differences among male academic non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of the total gradepoints achieved while enrolled in the institution.
According to the results presented in Table 63, male academicnon-persisting students who were enrolled on the campus located atStout tended to achieve a significantly higher mean number of gradepoints than did similar students who were enrolled on the campuseslocated at LaCrosse, Stevens Point, and Whitewater. Hale academicnon-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses locatedat LaCrosse, Stevens Point, and Whitewater did not appear to varysignificantly on the basis of the mean number of grade points achievedwhile enrolled on these campuses.
TABLE 63. DUNCAN'S NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG FIP.LE ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON THEBASIS OF GRADE POINTS ACHIEVED
LC SPCampus (N = 178) (N = 282) (N = 224) (N = 130)
Shortest
Means significant
29.41 33.21 33.54 43.02ranges
LC29.41
SP33.21
w33.54
S
3.80 4.13 13.61(56.09) (55.42) (166.72)* R2 = 62.22
0.33 9.81(5.21) (130.80)* R3 64.83
9.49(121.67)* R = 66.61
43.02
LC SP
*Significant at the 0.01 level
Tatle 6 presents the differences among female academia non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of credits earned,credits attempted, and grade points achieved while enrolled on thevarious campuses investigated. According to the results presented inTable 64, significant differences were indicated among female academicnon-persisting students among campuses on the basis of all three col-
lege achievement variables.
TABLE 64. Di_kkMENCES AMONG FEMALE ACADEMC NON PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAIDUSES ON TIE BASIS OF CREDITS EARNED, CREDITS AT-TEMPTED,
AND GRADE POINTS ACT al
VariableSource ofVariation
Sum of Degrees of MeanSquares Freedom Square
F P
Creditsearned
Creditsattempted
Gradepointsachieved
Between grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotal
2430.323876.326306.62000.69298.9
11299.56712.4
76616.983329.3
3 810.1
398 59.9 13.5 0.01
401
3 666.9398 23.4 28.5 0.01
401
3 2237.4398 192.5 11.6 0.01
401
The application of Duncan's New Multiple Range Test to the dif-ferences among female academic non-persisting students among campuseson the basis of mean credits earned is presented in Table 65. Accord-ing to these results, female academic non-persisting students who wereenrolled on the campus located at Stout tended to achieve a signifi-cantly higher mean number of credits earned than did their counterpartswho were enrolled on the campuses located at LaCrosse, Stevens Point,and Whitewater. Furthermore, female academic non-persisting studentswho were enrolled on the campus located at Whitewater tended to achievea significantly higher mean number of credits earned than did similar
students who were enrolled on the campus located at LaCrosse. Therewere no significant differences indicated among female academic non-
persisting students who were enrolled on the campus at Stevens Pointand similar students who were enrolled on the campuses located ateither Whitewater or LaCrosse,
7.5
TABLE 65. DUNCAN'S 1 r1 MULTUILE RANGE TEST APPLUD TO THE DIFFERENCES
.AMONG FEMALE ACADEMIC NON -PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CA11PUSES ON THEBASIS OF CRra)8 EARNED
LC SPCampus (N = 97) = 76) (II = 200) (11 = 29)
Shortest
Beans Eignificant
18.65 20.54 22.03 28.79ranges
LC 1.89 3.3818.65 ------ (17.54) (38.60)* (67.63)* R2 = 28.19
SP20.54-
1.49 8.25(15.63) (53.46)* R3 = 29.38
6.7622.03 (48.06)* R4 = 30.19
S28.79
SP
LC SP
*Significant at the 0.01 level
Table 66 presents the application of Duncan's New Multiple RangeTest to the differences among female academic non-persisting studentsamong campuses on the basis of credits attempted. According to theseresults, female academic non-persisting students who were enrolled onthe campuses located at Whltewater and Stout did not vary significantlyon the basis of the mean number of credits attempted. However, thesesame students tended to attempt a significantly hieher mean number ofcredits while they were enrolled on their respective campuses than didtheir female academic non-- persisting counterparts who were enrolled onthe campuses located at LaCrosse and Stevens Point. The female aca-demic non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses locatedat LaCrosse and Stevens Point did not appear to vary significantly withregard to the mean number of credits attempted while enrolled.
76
TABLE 66, DUNCAN'S NEW MULTME RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG FEMALE ACADREC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON nitBASIS OF CREDITS ATTEMPTED
Lr SPShortest
Campus = 97) (N = 76) (N. = 200) (N = 29)significant
Means25.43 26.62 30.12 31.69
ranges
LC 1.19 4.69 6.2625.43 (11.04) (53.56)* (41.75)* R2 = 1759
SP 3.50 5.0726.62 (36.72)* (32.85)* R, = 18.33
W 1.5730.12 (11.16) R4 = 18.83
S31.69
LC SP
*Significant at the 0.01 level
With regard to the mean number of grade points achieved whileenrolled on the various campuses investigated, female academie non-persisting students who were enrolled on the campus located at Stouttended to achieve a significantly higher mean number of grade pointsthan did their counterparts who were enrolled on the campuses locatedat LaCrosse, Whitewater, and Stevens Point. However, female academicnon-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses located atLaCrosse, Whitewater, and Stevens Point did not appear to vary signi-ficantly on the basis of mean number of grade points achieved. Theseresults are presented in Table 67.
77
TABLE 67. DUNCAN'S 1 MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLUD TO Tkit DIFFERENCES
AMONG FEMALE ACADEtEC NON - PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ON !WE
BASIS OF GRADE POINTS ACELIEVFeD
LC W SP SShortest
Campus (N = 97) (N = 200) (N = 76) (N = 29)Beans
significant
33.86 34.38 35.27 50.12ranges
LC 0.52 1.41 16.26
33.86 (5.9) (13.08) (108.45)* R9 = 50.53
0.89 15.74
34.38 (9.34) (111.90)* R3= 52.65
SP 14.85
35.27 (96.23)* R4 = 54.09
S
50.12
LC w SP
*Significant at the 0.01 level
Differences Among Non-Academic Non-Persisting Students. Table
68 presents the differences among male non-academic non-persisting stu-dents among campuses on the basis of credits earned, credits attempted,and grade points achieved while enrolled in the various institutionsinvestigated. According to the results presented in Table 68, therewere no significant differences found among male non-academic non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of any of the collegeachievement variables used in this investigation.
The differences among female non-academic non-persisting stu-dents among campuses cn the basis of credits earned, credits attempted,and grade points achieved while enrolled in the various institutionsinvestigated are presented in Table 69. As these results indicate,there were no significant differences found among female non-academicnon-persisting students among campuses on the basis of mean number ofcredits earned and credits attempted. However, there were significantdifferences found among female non-academic non-persisting studentsamong campuses on the basis of the mean number of grade points achievedwhile enrolled in the compared universities..
78
TABLE 68. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF CREDITS EARNED, CREDITS ATTENTTED, ANDGRADE POINTS ACHIEVED
VariableSource ofVariation
Sum of Degrees ofSquares Freedom
MeanSquare
F P
CreditsBetween grps
earnedWithin grpsTotal
516.255406.655922.8
Creditsattempted
Gradepointsachieved
Between grpsWithin grpsTotalBetween grpsWithin grpsTotal
136.945482.245619.1
72438944.8443317.4
3 172,70561 98.80 1.74 NS564
3561564
3 1 90.90561 782.4 1.91 NS564
45.6381.07 0.56 NS
TABLE 69. DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTSAMONG CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF CREDITS EARNED, CREDITS ATTEMPTED, ANDGRADE POINTS ACHIEVED
VariableSource ofVariation
Sum of Degrees ofSquares Freedom
MeanSquare
F P
Creditsearned
Between grpsWithin grpsTotal
CreditsBetween grpsWithin grps
attemptedTotal
Grade Between grpspoints Within grpsachieved Total
575.351620.252195.5
166.440644.040810.411761.8
505153.4516925.2
3 191.8
589 87.6 2.2 NS
59255.5
589 69.0 0.8 NS
592
3 3920.6589 857.6 4.6 0.01592
The application of Duncan's New Multiple Range Test to the dif-ferences among female non-academic non-persisting students among cam-puses on the basis of mean number of grade points achieved while en-rolled on the various campuses investigated is presented in Table 70.According to these results, the female non-academic non-persisting stu-dents who were enrolled on the campus located at Whitewater tended toachieve a significantly lower number of grade points than did theircounterparts who were enrolled on the campus located at Stout. Therewere no significant differences identified among female non-academicnon-persisting students who were enrolled on the campuses located atWhitewater, LaCrosse, and Stevens Point on the basis of mean number ofgrade points achieved. Furthermore, there were no significant differ-ences found among female non-academic non-persisting students who wereenrolled on the campuses located at LaCrosse, Stevens Point, and Stouton the basis of this same achievement variable.
79
TABLE 70. DUNCAWS NEW MULTIPLE RANGE TEST APPLIED TO THE DIFFERENCESAMONG FEMALE NON-ACADEMIC NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS AMONG CAMPUSES ONTHE BASIS OF GRADE POINTS ACHIEVED
W LC SP SCampus (N = 233) (N = 166) (N = 107) (N = 87)
Shortest
Means significant
52.54 53.84 57.12 65.67ranges
W 1.30 4.58 13.1352.54 (16.18) (55.42) (147.70)* R2 = 106.70
LC 3.28 11.835314 (37.39) (12.63) R
,= 111,18
SP 8.5557.12 (83.70) R = 114.23
S
65.67
LC SP
W LC SP
S
*Significant at the 0.01 level
Analysis of Non-Intellective Characteristics
*E A fourth purpose of this investigation was to seek out the na-ture and extent of the diversity of personal non-intellective charac-
mz teristics among persisting and non-persisting students. In order toachieve this purpose, persisting and non-persisting students were com-pared on the basis of personal non-intellective characteristics whichwere gathered through two major sources. Each persisting and non-persisting student had responded to the American College Testing Pro-gram (ACT) in which they had indicated their tentative decisions re-garding educational major, vocational choice, vocational role prefer-ences, and educational plans, After each persisting and non-persist-ing student had enrolled on his repsective campus, data were collectedregarding any change of academic major, place of college residence,and the size of high school graduating class. The discussion of theresults within this section will be presented in this order.
II
Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students onthe Basis of Sex. The differences between the number of male and fe-male students in terms of their persistence in all the universitiesinvestigated are presented in Table 71.
80
The results presented in Table 71 suggest there were fewer male
persisting students than expected with more female students than ex-
pected who persisted in the five universities studied. Also, there
seemed to be fewer male students than expected and more female students
than anticipated whc did not persist because of non-academic reasons.
However, there appeared to he more male students and fewer female stu-
dents than expected who did not persist in the five schools for academic
concerns. These results are in the expected direction.
TABLE 71. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS FROM ALL CM--
FUSES ON TIM BASIS OF PERSISTENCE
Male Female
Obs Exp Obs Exp Total
Persisting 2424 2459 1838 1803 4269
Academic NP 866 742 419 543 1285
Non-academic NP 706 795 672 583 1378
Total 3996 2929 6925
Degrees of Freedom 2
Chi Square 74.44
Significant at the 1% level of confidence
Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persistina Students on the
Basis of Educational Major. Table 72 presents the results of the dif-
fLo.,,,s among male persisting and non-persisting students on the basis
of educational major.
As these results indicate, there appeared to be more male per-
sisting and academic non-persisting students than anticipated but fewer
male students than expected who did not persist because of non-academic
reasons who were majoring in fields associated with the social, reli-
gious, and educational fields. This same observation may be made with
respect to those students majoring in th.e administrative, political,
and persuasive fields.
In the scientific fields, there seemed to be more male persist-
ing students than expected but fewer male non-persisting students than
anticipated--regardless of the reason for their non-persistence.
Male persisting students were observed less frequently than ex-
pected but male non-persisting students more frequently than antici-
pated who had selected a major area of study which could be classified
as being engineering, agriculture, or technology. This same observation
may be made with regard to th.e male persisting and nonpersisting stu-dents who were studying in the area of the arts and humanities.
81
TAM 72. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING AND NON- PERSISTING STUDENTSON ALL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF EDUCATIONAL MAJOR
P NPA /TO
Obs EXp Obs Exp Obs En-:1D Total
Social, Religious, andEducational Fields 382 376 133 127 117 129 632
Administrative, Politi-cal, and Persuasive 278 275 98 92 86 95 462
Business and Finance 231 234 81 80 82 80 394
Scientific Fields 225 212 68 71 63 73 356
Engineering, Agricultureand Technology 538 565 209 191 204 195 951
Medical Fields 116 114 35 38 40 39 191
Arts and Humanities 115 131 46 44 59 45 220
Other 32 35 6 11 20 12 58
Undecided 464 439 125 149 148 151 737
Total 2381 801 819 4001
Degrees of Freedom 16
Chi Square 27.523
Significant at the 5% level
82
The male persisting student who was undecided about his aca-
demic major was found more frequently than anticipated whereas the male
non-persister was observed less frequently than expected.
Table 73 presents the differences among female persisting and
non-persisting students on all campuses on the basis of educational
major.
As the results in Table 73 indicate, there were more femalepersisting and academic non-persisting students than anticipated who
had indicated a major in a social, religious, or educational field.
However, there tended to be fewer female students than expected who
we/e majoring in one of these areas but who did not persist because of
non-academic reasons.
Female persisting students who were majoring in a field asso-ciated with business or finance tended to be observed less frequentlythan anticipated, but female non-persisters who did not persist be-cause of non-academic reasons and who were majoring in similar areas
were observed more frequently than expected.
There appeared to be fewer female persisting students andslightly fewer female academic non-persisters thhn expected who werefocusing their study in the medical fields. On the i-ther hand, there
seemed to be more female students than expected in these areas whodid not persist because of non-academic reasons.
The results presented in Table 73 suggest that there were morefemale persisting students than expected majoring in fields associatedwith the arts and humanities but slightly fewer female non-persistingstudents than expected studying in these same areas--regardless of thereason for non-persistence.
There seemed to be fewer female perEisting students as well asacademic non-persisting students than anticipated who were not able to
make a decision with respect to an educational major. However, there
appeared to be more female students than expected who did not persistbecause of non-academic reasons and who had indicated being undecidedabout an academic major.
Summary. Based on the results presented in Tables 72 and 73,persistence seemed to be favored by an educational major that was con-sistent with the purposes of most of the institutions investigated.Students who planned to major in an area associated with the scientificfields seemed to persist more frequently than anticipated. Female stu-dents who intended to major in an area associated with the arts and hu-manities tended to persist more frequently than expected but male stu-dents tended to persist less frequently than anticipated. The results
seemed to indicate that being undecided about an educational major mayfavor persistence among male students but not among female students.
83
TABLE 73. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STU-
DENTS ON ALL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF EDUCATIONAL MAJOR
111PA NPO
Obs Ex Obs Exp Obs Exp Total
Social, Religious, andEducational Fields 1074 1048 244 217 377 430 1695
Administrative, Politi-cal, and Persuasive 61 61 13 13 25 25 99
Business and Finance 68 79 15 16 45 33 128
Scientific Fields 68 61 4 13 27 25 99
Engineering, Agricultureand Technology 1 1 0 0 1 1 2
Medical Fields 124 147 28 30 85 60 237
Arts and Humanities 169 157 25 33 60 64 254
Other 20 23 9 5 9 10 38
Undecided 229 237 38 49 116 97 383
Total 1814 376 745 2935
Degrees of Freedom 16
Chi Square 45.116
Significant at the 1% level
84
Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on the
Basis of Vocational Choice. The results presented in Table 74 show the
differences among persisting and non-persisting male students on all
campuses on the basis of vocational choice. While there were no signifi-
cant differences indicated, the direction of the results will be dis-
cussed because of possible implications for future research. According
to these results, there tended to be more male persisting students than
expected who had selected an occupational area which might be associated
with the social, religious, or educational fields. On the other hand,
there appeared to be fewer non-persisting male students--regardless of
their reason for non-persistence--than gnticipated who hr.d indicated a
vocational choice which might be related to these same three fields.
There seemed to be slightly fewer persisting and non-persisting
male students than expected who had indicated a vocational choice in
the fields of administration, politics, or persuasion. The same obser-
vation could be made with regard to the vocational fields of business,
finance, and science.
There appeared to be fewer persisting male students than anti-
cipated who had revealed an occupational decision which might be re-
lated to engineering, agriculture, or technology. The same observation
could be made with regard to the male student who did not persist be-
cause of non-academic reasons. However, there tended to be more male
students than expected who did not persist because of academic reasons
but who had indicated a vocational choice of a field that might be re-
lated to these same three areas.
There seemed to be more persisting and slightly fewer academic
non-persisting male students than expected who had selected a vocation
in one of the medical fields.
Non-persisting male students--regardless of the reason for non-
persistence--were observed slightly more frequently than expected where
the vocational choice could be related to the arts and humanities.
Within this same vocational area, persisting male students were observed
less frequently than anticipated.
Persisting male students seemed to indicate being undecided
about their vocation more frequently than expected. This same observa-
tion might be made with regard to the male non-persister who withdrew
because of non-academic reasons. However, there seemed to be fewer
academic non-persisting male students than anticipated who had not de-
veloped a clear concept regarding their future occupation.
The results presented in Table 75 reveal the differences among
female persisting and non-persisting students on all campuses on the
basis of vocational choice.
Those results seemed to indicate that there were more persist-
ing female students than expected who indicated a vocational decision
which might be related to social, relia4ous, or educational fields.
There appeared to be fewer female non-persisting students--regardless
85
T
I
TABLE 74. DMERENCES AMONG MAJE PERSISTING AND NON-PkIRSISTING STUDENTSON ALL CAPXUSES ON TIE BASIS OF VOCATIONAL CHOICE
P NPA NPO
Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp Total
Social, Religious, andEducational Fields 386 363 113 122 110 124 609
Administrative, Politi-cal, and Persuaive
Business and Finance
Scientific Fields
Engineering, Agricultureand Technology
Medical FieIds
Arts and Humanities
192 186
171 175
97 100
457 472
122 116
104 118
Rouse-wife 2
Other 146
Undecided 641
61 62 59 64 312
62 58 60 60 293
37.-)-2"11
-1 34 34 168
182 158 153 162 792
31 38 41 40 194
49 40 45 40 198
2 0 0 0 0
159 54 54 68 55
627 187 210 223 214
2
268
1051
Total 2318 7r/6 793 3887
Degrees of Freedom
Chi Square
Not Significant
18
22.928
86
TABLE 75. DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STU-
DENTS ON AIL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF VOCATIONAL CHOICE
EPA NPO
Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs DT Total
Social, Religious, andEducational Fields 975 934 203 196 339 387 1517
Administrative, Politi-cal, and Persuasive 57 57 9 12 27 24 93
Business and Finance 36 51 17 11 30 21 83
Scientific Fields 33 26 3 5 6 11 42
Engineering, Agricultureand Technology 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
Medical Fields 139 154 27 32 84 64 250
Arts and Humanities 87 92 23 21 40 37 150
Housewife 21 25 5 5 14 10 40
Other 98 104 32 22 39 43 169
Undecided 318 321 52 67 150 132 520
Total 1764 371 729 2864
Degrees of Freedom 18
Chi Square 45.047
Significant at the 1% level
87
of the reason fcr ncn-persistence--than expected who had decided that
their future vocation would be within one of these same three areas.
The results presented in Table 75 tended to reveal that any
variance among persisting and non-persisting students who had decided
that their vocaticnal area would be within the fields of engineering,
agriculture, or technology probably could be attributed to the male
population with Ln the five universities.
There appeared to be fewer persisting and academic non-persist-ing female students than expected who had selected a vocation associated
with one of the medical fields. However, there seemed to be more female
students than expected who had indicated their vocation in one of these
medical fields but who had not persisted because of non-academic reasons.
According to the results presented in Table 75, there seemed tobe fewer persisting and academic non-persisting female students than ex-
pected who were undecided about their future vocation. On the other
hand, there appeared to be more female students indicating indecisionregarding their future career but who did not persist because of non-
academic reasons.
Summary According to the results presented in Tables 74 and75, persistence seemed to be favored among students if they are plan-
ning on a vocation which is associated with the educational emphasis
that is found in the five universities investigated. Persistence with-
in the university does not seem to be favored by students who had
elected a vocation which might be associated with the fields of engi-
neering, agriculture, technology, or the arts and humanities. Male
students who had elected a vocational choice associated with the medi-
cal fields seemed to be found more frequently than anticipated whereas
the female student who had elected a career in one of the variousmedical fields appeared to be found more frequently among those stu-
dents who had not persisted for non-academic reasons.
As was indicated in the results presented in Tables 72 and 73,being undecided about a vocational choice seamed to favor persisting
male students and not female students. Furthermore, if the undecided
male or female student does not persist, the reasons may well be non-
academic.
Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on the
Basis of Vocational Role Preferences. Male persisting and non-persist-ing students on all campuses were compared on the basis of their voca-
tional role preferences. The results of this comparison are presented
in Table 76. According to these results, there were no significantdifferences between the observed and expected number of male persistingand non-persisting students within each of the vocational role prefer-
ence categories.
Table 77 shows the results of the differences among female per-sisting and non-persisting students on all campuses on the basis oftheir preferences for a vocational role.
88
TABLE 76. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS
ON ALL CAMPUSES ON TIE BASIS OF VOCATIONAL ROLE PREFERENCES
P NPA NPO
Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp Total
Researcher orInvestigator 218 220 75 74 76 75 369
Teacher or Therapist -475 459 147 152 145 156 767
Administrator orSupervisor 283 278 102 93 80 94 465
Promoter or Salesmanof Services or 100 101 32 34 37 34 169
Products
Practitioner, Performer,Producer of Services 387 378 127 127 120 120 634
or Products
None of the Above 198 226 86 76 95 77 379
Two or More Roles 74 73 21 25 23 25 123
Undecided 575 575 184 193 205 196 964
Total 2310 774 786 3870
Degrees of Freedom
Chi Square
Not Significant
14
16.663
J.
Yr'
TABLE 77. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STU-
DENTS ON ALL CA11PUSES ON TIE BASIS OF VOCATIONAL ROLE PREFERENCES
P NPA NPO
Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs Ecp Total
Researcher orInvestigator
Teacher or Therapist
Administrator orSupervisor
57 57 11 12 24 23 92
974 924 188 194 336 379 1498
48 49 9 10 22 20 79
Promoter or Salesmanof Services or 17 15 0 3 7 6 24
Products
Practitioner, Performer,Producer of Services 166 180 45 38 80 74 291
or Products
None of the Above 103 136 47 29 70 56 220
Two or More Roles 63 59 12 _13 22 25 97
Undecided 322 330 56 69 157 135 535
Total 1750 368 718 2836
Degrees of Freedom 14
Chi Square 44.132
Significant at the 1% level
Based on these results, there seemed to be more female persist-ing students than anticipated who preferred the occupational role of ateacher or therapist. There tended to be fewer non-persisting studentsthan expectedregardiess of reason for non - persistence- -who preferred
these same vocational roles.
Fewer female persisting students than expected indicated apreference for a vocational role that might be associated with a prac-titioner, performer, or producer of services of products. However,slightly more non persisting female students than expected expressed apreference for one of these roles.
There appeared io be fewer female persisting students than ex-pected who indicated that they preferred an occupational role other thanthose listed whereas more female non-persisters than anticipated indi-cated that the alternatives of vocational roles did not reflect theirpreferences.
Female persisting students as well as female academic non-persisters tended to be observed less frequently than expected as beingundecided with regard to a vocational role preference. However, femalestudents who did not persist because of non-academic reasons were ob-served more often than anticipated as being undecided about a preferredoccupational role.
Summary. Persistence seems to be favored among female studentsif they prefer a teacher-therapist role in their future vocation. Thisvocational role tends to be quite consistent with the goals of the fiveinstitutions investigated. Non-persistence tends to be favored if thefemale student prefers a vocational role which may be more closelyaligned with practitioner, performer, or producer of services. Basedon the data presented in Table 77, persisting female students on allthe campuses seemed to be more able to identify a vocational role pref-erence. As was indicated with the analysis of the results dealing witheducational major and vocational choice, being undecided about a voca-tional role preference does not seem to facilitate persistence amongfemale students. The results seem to indicate that the female student,if she is undecided about a vocational role preference, will probablynot persist mithin the institution and might well be expected to with-draw for reasons other than those that might be related to academicconcerns.
Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on theBasis of Educational Plans. Male persisting and non-persisting studentson all campuses were compared on the basis of their educational plans.
Educational plans were defined as the anticipated educational degree tobe obtained. The results of these comparisons are presented in Table78.
Based on these results, the vast majority of the male studentson all campuses anticipated the completion of the bachelorts degree.There seemed to be fewer male persisting students than anticipated whoaspired to the receipt of the bachelorts degree but more non-persisting
91
TABLE 78. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS
ON ALL CAMPUSES ON THE BASIS OF EDUCATIONAL PLANS
P NPA NPO
Obs Exp Obs
High School Diploma 5 7 4
College, but less than
a Bachelor's Degree 332 360 142
B.A. 1286 1312 461
M.A., M.B.A. 528 476 124
Ph.D. 39 42 14
M.D. 42 36 9
Exp Obs Exp
2 2 2
121 130 123
411 453 447
160 147 162
14 17 14
12 10 12
Total
11
604
2200
798
70
61
D.D.S. 25 25 8 8 9 9 42
L.L.B. 31 33 12
B.D. 5 3 0
Other 42 41 10
11 12 11
1 0 1
14 16 14
55
5
68
Total 2335 784 795 3914
Degrees of Freedom 16
Chi Square 34.122
Significant at the 1% level
92
male students than expected who planned on the completion of the re-
quirements for this degree. Persisting male students tended to beobserved less frequently' than expected among those students who didnot anticipate the completion of the bachelor's degree. On the otherhand, the male non-persisting student appeared more often than expectedindicating that his educatio,-al plans included college but not the com-
pletion of the bachelor's degree.
With regard to graduate study as defined by the aspirationtoward the master's degree, there were more persisting male studentsthan expected who anticipated pursuing graduate study for a master's
degree. Male non-persisting students, on the other hand, were foundless frequently than expected with aspirations of the completion of
this same degree.
The results presented in Table 79 show the differences amongfemale persisting and non-persisting students on all campuses on thebasis of their educational plans.
A review of the results presented in Table 79 indicates thatmost female students did not anticipate graduate study beyond themaster's degree level and, where such students are observed, they arevery close to the number expected. The majority of the female stu-dents seemed to anticipate the completion of the bachelor's degreewith the next greatest number of students being found in the categor-ies of less than a college degree or the master's degree program.
There appeared to be fewer female persisting students thanexpected who indicated that they did not plan on completing theircollege program. On the other hand, there seemed to be more femalenon-persisting students than expected who revealed that they did notanticipate completing the four year program.
Persisting female students tended to be more likely to plan onthe achievement of the bachelor's degree whereas non-persisting femalestudents tended to be less likely to aspire to the receipt of this samedegree.
There were more female students than expected who either per-sisted or did not persist because of non-academic reasons who seemedto anticipate the completion of the master's degree program. However,there were fewer female students than expected who were academic non-persisters who revealed that they planned to achieve this same degree.
Summary. According to the results presented in Tables 78 and79, persisting students seemed to anticipate the completion of thefour years within any of the five institutions investigated as well asholding aspirations for graduate study. Male and female students whodid not peisist because of academic reasons appeared to anticipatetheir non-persistence since they reflected that they expected to attendcollege but did not aspire to the completion of the four years. Fur-thermore, very few of the male and female academic non-persisting stu-dents held the master's degree as an educational goal. The male and
93
TABLE 79. DIFFERENCES AMONG MALE PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STU-DENTS ON ALL CAILTUSES ON TE BASIS OF EDUCATIONAL PLANS
P NPA NPO
Obs Exp Obs Exp Obs Exp Total
High School Diploma 3 4 1 1 3 2 7
College, but less thana Bachelor's Degree 227 286 97 60 140 118 464
B.A. 1222 1172 230 245 447 482 1899
M.A., M.B.A. 269 259 37 54 114 107 420
Ph.D. 21 19 1 4 9 8 31
M.D. 7 8 0 2 6 3 13
D.D.S. 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
L.L.B. 1 1 0 0 1 1 2
B.D. 1 1 0 0 0 0 1
Other 32 33 7 7 i14 13 53
Total 1784 373 734 2891
Degrees of Freedom 16
Chi Square 59.446
Significant at the 1% level
94
female students who did not persist because of non-academic reasons
tended to reflect a slightly higher educational aspiration since they
appeared to be more likely to aspire to the master's degree than the
academic non-persisters. However, the results seemed to indicate that
such students may-have serious questions about their persisting to the
completion of the bachelor's degree and, if they aspired to the master's
degree, they might be expected to have serious questions about this edu-
cational goal.
Differences Among Persisting and Non - Persists no Students on the
Basis of Change of Academic Major. In the comparison among persisting
and non-persisting male students on the basis of change of academic
major, there were no significant differences found among the three sub-
groups of persistence of male students.
On the other hand, there were significant differences indicated
among persisting and non-persisting female students in terms of a change
of academic major. Table 80 presents these results.
Based on the results presented in Table 80, there tended to be
more female persisting students than expected who did not change their
academic major while there were fewer female persisting students than
expected who did change their major area of study. The same trend in
results appeared to be reflected with those female students who did not
persist because of non-academic reasons.
However, there were fewer academic non-persisting female stu-
dents than expected who remained in one major area of concentrationwhile there were more of these same students than expected who changed
their academic major.
TABLE 80. DIFFERENCES AMONG FEMALE PERSISTING AND NON- PERSISTING STU-
DENTS ON THE BASIS OF CHANCE OF ACADEMIC MAJOR
Unchanged Changed
Obs Exp
Persisting 1288 1274
Academic NP 268 290
Non-academic NP 474 466
Total 2030
Obs Exp Total
550 564 1838
151 129 419
198 206 672
899 2929
Degrees of Freedom 2
Chi Square 6.371
Significant at the 5% level of confidence
95
Summary. Based on the results presented in Table 80, persist-
ence seems to be positively related to commitment to an academic major.
The finding that those female students who did not persist because of
academic reasons will probably change their academic major tends to be
consistent with the results presented in Tables 78 and 79, in which the
academic non-persister reflected a definite doubt with regard to com-
mitment to the completion of the four years and the bachelor's degree.
Differences Anon°. Persisting and Von-Persisting Students on the
Basis of College Residence. Table 81 shows the differences among per-
sisting and non persisting students enrolled on the five campuses in-
vestigated on the basis of their place of college residence.
Although the numerical differences were not extreme, the re-
sults presented in Table 81 tended to indicate that there were fewer
students than expected who persisted regardless of their place of col-
lege residence. However, the results seemed to indicate that living
in a campus residence hall tended to enhance the possibility of per-
sistence since the difference between the number of observed and ex-
pected students within this category tended to be the least of any of
the four possible living arrangements. There seemed to be more stu-
dents than expected who tended not to persist because of academic rea-
sons who lived in private housing or with parents and/or relatives.Conversely, there appeared to be fewer of these same type of non-per-
sisting students than expected who lived in a university residence hall.
The results in Table 81 tended to indicate that fewer students
than expected who did not persist because of non -academic reasons were
living in residence halls. In contrast, there seemed to be more of
these non-academic non-persisting students living in college residences
other than university residence balls with the greatest discrepancy
being between observed and expected numbers of students being in the
category of home/parents.
Summary. Based on these results, persistence within the uni-versities tended to be favored if the students were residing in a uni-
versity-operated housing unit. Non-persistence tended to be more likely
where the student was residing in either a private residence or at home
living with parents or relatives. Since there appeared to be more stu-
dents than expected who did not persist because of non-academic reasonsliving at home with parents/relatives and fewer of these same students
residing in university-operated housing units, there maybe some reasonto believe that the involvement in campus activity may be a factor of
persistence.
96
TABLE 81.
DIFFERENCES AMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTING STUDENTS ON THE BASIS OF COLLEGE
RESIDENCE
Residence Hall
Private
Commute
Home/Parents
Obs
Persisting
3350
Academic NP
929
Non-academic NP
998
Exp
Obs
3252
282
980
108
1045
116
,1.
Exp
Obs
Exp
Obs
Exp
Total
312
116
154
476
506
4224
94
72
47
165
153
1274
100
63
50
180
162
1357
Total
5277
506
1111
0111
41IM
MIII
IMIII
IMIN
NIM
I111
4MO
IN
251
821
6855
Degrees of Freedom
6
Chi Square
46.02
Significant at the 1% level of confidence
di
Differences Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students on the
Basis of Size of Nigh School Graduating Class. The differences among
persisting and non-persisting students on all campuses on the basis of
the size of high school graduating class are presented in Table 82.
The results shown in Table 82 suggest that there were more per-
sisting students than expected who graduated from classes of 250 or
fewer students while there were fewer persisting students than expected
who graduated from classes of 250-750 students.
Based on the results presented in Table 82, there were fewer
students than expected who did not persist because of academic reasons
whose high school graduating class was 250 or fewer students while there
were more of these academic nonpersisting students than expected who
graduated from classes of 250 students or more.
There appeared to be more students than expected who did not
persist for non-academic reasons who graduated in classes of 100 or
fewer students while fewer students than expected who did not persist
for similar reasons graduated in high school classes of 100-500 or
more students.
The results presented in Table 82 tend to suggest that the size
of high school class in which the student gra&ated may be a factor in
terms of persistence within the five universities investigated. The
results seemed to indicate that students graduating from a class of 250
or fewer students may be more likely to persist in one of the univer-
sities than students who graduate from classes of 250 or more students.
Furthermore, if the student who graduated from a class of 100 or fewer
students does not persist, it seems likely to expect that his non-per-
sistence is due to non-academic reasons.
98
TABLE 82.
DIFFERENCES AMONG PERSISTING AND NON-PERSISTINGSTUDENTS ON THE BASIS OF SIZE OF
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATING CLASS
0-25
26-50
51-10o
101-250
Obs
Exp
Obs
Exp
Persisting
37
36
263
256
Academic NP
611
65
77
Non-academic NP
16
12
88
83
Total
59
416
Obs
Exp
Obs
Exp
773
749
1515
1503
198
226
447
453
245
241
479
485
1216
2441
251-500
501 750
751 -999,9
VD
Obs
Exp
VD
Persisting
1019
1021
Academic NP
320
307
Non-academic NP
319
330
Total
1658
Obs
Exp
472
512
189
155
172
166
833
Obs
Exp
Total
140
142
4219
47
43
1272
44
46
1363
231
6854
Degrees of Freedom
Chi Square
12
22.77
Significant at the 5% level
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMENDATIONS
The purpose of this study was to seek out the nature and extent
of the diversity of the characteristics of persisting and non-persisting
students within and among the various campuses of five state universi-
ties. Specifically, the study attempted to discern what diversity of
intellective and non-intellective factors existed among persisting and
non-persisting students within and among the selected campuses.
The total student sample (N = 7010) of this study consisted of
students who were enrolled on the five campuses on a full-time basis
and were classified by university standards as freshmen for the 1965-66
academic year. Essentially, the total student sample consisted of the
entire freshman class of 1965-66, for whom ACT scores were available in
the five state universities which participated in the investigation.
The five state universities which participated in the study were located
at Stevens Point, Whitewater, River Falls, LaCrosse, and Menomonie
(Stout).
The 1965-66 freshman class was selected because of the availa-
bility of intellective and non-intellective pre-matriculation data.
Prior to the 1965-66 academic year, some of the institutions investi-
gated had not requested the collection and analysis of non-intellective
data on their freshman classes. All institutions investigated partici-
pated in the post-enrollment analysis provided by the American Colle e
Testing Program for the entering freshman class during the 1965-
academic year. Therefore, the sampling was delimited to the 1965-66
year in order to assure uniformity of intellective and non-intellective
data.
The problem examined in this investigation was divided into
four broad areas. Thus, the summary of the findings and conclusions
and recommendations resulting from these findings might be best dis-
cussed in terms of the four basic areas investigated.
Diversity Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students
Among Campuses on the Basis of Scholastic Aptitude
Persisting and non-persisting students were compared, regard-
less of the campus on which they were enrolled, on the basis of the
mean scores reflected on the various sub-scales of the ACT. In all
cases, persisting students tended to achieve significantly higher mean
scores on all the sub-scales than either of the two non-persisting sub-
groups. Furthermore, non-academic non-persisting students, while
achieving a significantly lower mean score on these ACT sub-scales
than the persisting students, appeared to make significantly higher
mean scores than the academic non-persister.
These results seemed to be in the expected direction. Per-
sisting students appeared to enter their various universities with a
significantly higher scholastic aptitude than did their non-persisting
100
counterparts. However, the results did indicate clearly that the ACT
sub-scales did discriminate among persisting and non-persisting students.
Also, while there may be some tendency to group all non-persisting stu-
dents into one broad category -with regard to scholastic aptitude, the
results of this study tended to indicate that this should not be done.
There seems to be reason to believe that the non-academic non-persisting
students entered the various universities with a significantly. higher
scholastic aptitude than did the academic non-persister.
In the attempt to discern if there were any significant differ-
ences between male and female students on the basis of scores cn the
tests of scholastic aptitude, the mean scores achieved cn the ACT scales
were compared. Since significant differences had been identified among
persisting and non-persisting students, separate analyses were made for
the three categories of persisting and non-persisting students in deter-
mining the significance of any differences between male and female mem-
bers of the student sample. Significant differences were identified
among male and female persisting and non-persisting students.
The analysis of the differences between male and female persist-
ing and non-persisting students seemed to indicate that the female stu-
dents, regardless of persisting or non-persisting status, tended to make
a significantly higher mean score on the ACT-English scale than did
their male counterparts. Conversely, the male student, regardless of
persistence status, tended to make a significantly higher mean score on
the Mathematics and Natural Science sub-scales of the ACT. The persist-
ing female students appeared to indicate a significantly higher mean
score on the Social Science sub-scale of the ACT, whereas the male stu-
dent who was a non-persister because of academic reasons tended to re-
flect a significantly higher mean score than did the female student for
this same sub-scale.
In terms of the Composite score for the ACT, there did not ap-
pear to be any significant differences between male and female persist-
ing students or non-persisting students who withdrew for non-academic
reasons. However, male students who withdrew for academic reasons tend-
ed to reflect a significantly higher mean score on the Composite scale
of the ACT than did the female student who did not persist for similar
reasons.
Since significant differences had been identified among per-sisting and non-persisting students, as well as between male and female
students, the data were partitioned into six separate subgroups where
significant differences had been determined prior to the comparison of
campuses on the basis of mean scores achieved on the ACT. This proce-
dure was necessary in order to insure that any differences that might
be identified among campuses in terms of mean scores achieved on the
various scales of the ACT were valid and could not be attributed to
either differences between male and female students or among persisting
and non-persisting students. Were significant differences were deter-
mined among campuses, Duncants New Multiple Range Test was applied to
the variance ratio data in order to determine the location of the source
of variance.
101
Significant differences were found among campuses on the basis
of mean scores achieved by female persisting students on all the sub-
scales of the ACT with the ex:7-eptin cf the Natural Science scale, Fur-
thermore, significant differerces were indicated among campuses on all
the sub-scales of the ACT in term= cf mean score achieved among the male
persisting student sut-samplese Based on these results, there were sig-
nificant differences found among campuses with regard to scholastic apti-
tude of both the male and female pers...sting students.
Significant differences were revealed among female academic non-
persisting students among campuses on the basis of the mean scores for
four of the five ACT scales. Based on these results, the English,
Social Science, Natural Science, and Composite sub-scales of the ACT
seemed to discriminate among female academic non-persisting students
among campuses. With regard to male academic non-persisting students,
significant differences were found among the student sub-sample among
campuses on the basis of mean scores for the Mathematics, Social Sci-
ence, Natural Science, and. Composite sub- scales of the ACT. Again,
the various sub-scales of the ACT tended to be discriminate factors
among academic non-persisting students among campuses.
There were no significant differences revealed among female
non-academic non-persisting students among campuses on the basis of
mean scores for the sub-scales of the ACT, Furthermore, only the Eng-
lish sub-scale of the ACT tended to differentiate among male non-
academic non-persisting students among campuses. Based on these re-
sults, the various sub-scales of the ACT did not seem to differentiate
among non-academic non-persisting students among campuses. The only
exception was the Enaligh sub-scale of the ACT.
The following recommendations are made in view of the results
of this study regarding scholastic aptitude. The order of recommenda-
tions is not on the basis of priority.
Based on the results, the intellective scales of the American
College Testing Program (ACT) tended to be discriminate factors among
persisting and non-persisting students. Since these scales appeared
to be discriminate factors, it is recommended that each campus give
serious consideration to the development of an intensive discriminate
analysis program of their incoming student population utilizing the
results of the ACT program. Furthermore, since significant differ-
ences were indicated between male and female students, it is recom-
mended that this discriminate analysis program take into account these
differences.
The academic non-persisting student appeared to enter the var-
ious universities with a significantly lower scholastic aptitude than
did the non-academic non-persisting student. This significant differ-
ence may have definite implications for programs within the various
universities if these universities hope to effect differentiall;y-r'the
attrition rate. The results suggest that the assistance given to the
academic non-persisting student may differ significantly from the ser-
vice provided to the non-academic non-persisting student.
102
Many of the educational models that are found in higher educa-tion today are focused for the development of an "intellectual elite"with little collsideraticn being gi7en to the "push-out," Further inves-tigation seems to be recommended on the basis of the findings in thisstudy for identifying the source within the educational models foundwithin these state universities which provide for the differences interms of scholastic aptitude among persisting and non-persisting stu-dents. The results of such further investigation would seem to havedefinite implications for such programs as attraction and selection ofpotential students, accelerated classes, advanced class placements,honors programs, and the development of individualized attention tothe educational development of students who obvioasly have differencesin terms of scholastic potential.
Diversity Among Persisting and Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of High School Achievement
A second area of investigation was to seek out differencesamong persisting and non-persisting students among campuses on thebasis of previous high school achievement. The total student samplehad participated in providing these data through responding to theAmerican College Testing Program (ACT). The average grade achievedin high school as indicated by each student on this instrument wasused as the estimate of previous high school achievement of the per-sisting and non-persisting students.
When persisting and non-persisting students were compared,persisting students tended to achieve a significantly higher gradeaverage in high school than the non-persisting student. Furthermore,the academic non-persisting student tended to indicate a significantlylower average grade achieved in high school than either the non-per-sisting student who withdrew from the university for non-academic rea-sons or the persisting student.
Again, these results seemed to be in the expected direction.Persisting students appeared to enter their various universities witha significantly higher academic success pattern than did their non-persisting counterparts. Furthermore, the results of this investiga-tion tended to indicate that all non-persisting students should not bepooled on the basis of previous high school achievement. Non-academicnon-persisting students appeared to enter the various universities witha significantly higher academic success pattern than did the academicnon-persister,
Comparisons were made between male and female students on thebasis of the average grade achieved in high school in order to discernif there were any significant differences between these two studentsubgroups. Since significant differences had been identified amongpersisting and non-persisting students, separate analyses were made forthe three categories of persisting and non-persisting students in orderto determine the significance of any differences between male and fe-male members of the student sample.
103
When the male and female students were compared, there were
highly significant differences found between male and female persist-
ing and non-persistLng students in terms of their average grade achieved
in high school. Based on the results of the investigation, the female
student, regardless of the campus and persistence status, tended to
achieve a higher grade point average in high school than did her male
counterpart. These results are in the anticipated direction.
Since significant differences were found between male and fe-
male students as well as among persisting and non-persisting students,
the total group was partitioned into six subgroups prior to the compar-
ison of students among campuses.
Significant differences were found among campuses on the basis
of mean scores achieved by female persisting and non-persisting stu-
dents in terms of mean grade point achieved in high school. Based on
these results, the mean grade point achieved in high school seemed to
be a differential factor among female persisting and non-persisting
students as well as among campuses.
Significant differences were revealed among campuses on the
basis of mean scores achieved by male persisting and academic non-
persisting students in terms of the mean grade point achieved in high
school. However, there were no significant differences indicated
among campuses on the basis of the mean grade point achieved in high
school by the non-academic non-persisting student.
The following recommendations are made in view of the results
of this investigation regarding previous high school achievement.
Again, the order of recommendations is not on the basis of priority.
The results of this investigation indicated that the mean grade
point achieved in high school tended to be a discriminate variable
among persisting and non-persisting students. Based on these results,
each campus should give serious consideration to the inclusion of this
factor in their development of continued investigation of this factor
as it relates to their respective educational programs. Furthermore,
since significant differences were indicated between male and female
students, these differences should be recognized in the development of
further research.
The academic non-persisting student appeared to enter the var-
ious universities with a significantly lower academic success pattern
than did either the persisting or non-academic non-persisting student.
These results suggest that each institution should review its educa-
tional programs for the purpose of identifying the extent to which
these programs take into consideration this differential and previous
academic success.
104
Diversity Am ng Persisting and Non-Persisting StudentsAmong Campuses on the Basis of College Achievement
A. purpose of this investigation was to seek out differences
among persisting and non-persisting students on the basis of college
achievement. College achievement was defined in terms of the total
number of credits earned, credits attempted, and grade points achieved
by the persisting and non-persisting students among campuses.
Significant differences were found among female persistingstudents among campuses on the basis of credits earned, credits at-
tempted, and grade points achieved. Furthermore, significant differ-
ences were indicated among male persisting students among campuses on
the basis of credits earned and credits attempted. However, ::here
were no significant differences revealed among male persisting stu-
dents among campuses in terms of the total number of grade points
achieved while enrolled in each of the respective institutions.Based on these results, college achievement as defined in this inves-
tigation seemed to be a differential factor among male and female
persisting students among campuses.
There were significant differences revealed among male andfemale academic non-persisting students among campuses on the basis
of credits earned, credits attempted, and total grade points achieved
while enrolled on the respective campuses. Again, these achievement
variables seemed to differentiate among academic non-persisting stu-
dents among campuses.
According to the findings of this investigation, there were
no significant differences found among female non-academic non-per-sisting students among campuses on the basis of mean number of credits
earned and credits attempted. However, there were significant differ-
ences found among female non-academic non-persisting students among
campuses on the basis of the mean number of grade points achieved
while enrolled in the compared universities. There were no significant
differences found among male non-academic non-persisting students among
campuses on the basis of any of the college achievement variables used
in this investigation. Based on these results, the mean number ofcredits earned, credits attempted, and grade points achieved while en-rolled in the various universities did not seem to be a discriminatefactor among male and female non-academic non-persisting students
among campuses.
Based on these results, it is recommended that further investi-gation be conducted to attempt to account for the reasons for the var-iances among campuses on the basis of college achievement with particu-lar attention being focused on the persisting and academic non-persist-ing student population. Such investigation may provide insight intoinstitutional differences in educational policies and procedures. Ob-
viously, such policies and procedures are of vital concern.
Further study seems to be indicated for the purpose of delineat-ing the reasons that the mean number of credits earned, credits attempted,
105
and grade points aohieved in college hsr the non-academic non-persisting
student does not seem to discrimirate among campuses whereas these same
variables do seem tc differentiate campuses among persisting and aca-
demic non-persisting students.
Diversity Among Persisting and Non-Persisting Students
Among Campuses on tne Basis of Non-Intellective Characteristics
A fourrn purPose of this investigation was to seek out the
nature and extent of the diversity of perscnal non-intellective charac-
teristics amcng persisting and non-persisting students. In order to
achieve this purpose; persisting and non-persisting students were com-
pared on the basis of personal ncn-intellective characteristics which
were gathered tnrough two major souroes. Each persisting and non-
persisting student had responded to the American College Testinei Pro-
gram (ACT) in which he had indicated his teatative decisions regarding
edLoational major, vocational choice, vocational role preferences, and
educational plans. After each persisting and non-persisting student
had enrolled on his respective campus, data were collected regarding
any change of academic major, place of college residenze, and the size
of high school graduating class. The summary of the findings and con-
clusions and recommendations resulting from these findings in this
section of this investigation will be discussed in this order.
Since there appeared to be a aignificant difference with re-
gard to the number of male and female students who either persisted
or did not persist for academic or non-academic reasons, separate
analyses were ccndueted for male and female students on the basis of
non-intellective factors.
Differences Among Persisting and Von-Persisting Students on
the Basis of Educational Major. There were significant differences
indicated among male and female persisting and non-persisting students
on the basis of educational major. Based on the results of this in-
vestigation, persistence seemed to be favored by an educational major
that was consistent with the purposes of most cf the institutions in-
vestigated. Students who planned to major in an area associated with
the scientific fields seemed to persist more frequently than antici-
pated. Female students who intended o major an area associated
with the arts end humanities tended to persist more frequently than
expected but male students tended to persist :less frequently than
anticipated, The results seemed to indicate that being undecided
about an educational major may favor persistence among male students
but not among female students.
Differences Among Persisting and Non - Persisting Students on
the Basis of Vocational Choice. Male persisting and non-persisting
students on all campuses were compared on the basis of their vocational
choice. According to the results, there were no significant differ-
ences indicated among male persisting and non -- persisting students. On
the other hand, there were significant differences revealed among fe-
male persisting and non-persisting students cry all campuses on the basis
of vocational choice.
106
lamal Omni
04 *1 5 1-4 c+ PG 0 ct- 1-,*O 0" 11) 0 tr- 1-4) S.) 1' 0C)
LJ.Z C-I. DI 0 0 0 ORC) o cc H. cr 0-' z
a. o' 1-1 H. 11 O' P PI,- 0- CD PG 1-, 0c+ 1-0 1-4 li 0 Pa
04 0 cf u) oCD 0 H CA
a) ct O'' Z ec)C) C) 0 c+ 1-, H 0 0 P0 P 0 H4 01 s:I' 1-4 OFli tS cf. c+ z 0 1 a..1
O co I-J 0 0 A) cf. 0 I'd P-.CY H 0 0- c+ H. - CD
ci) rn 0 1.J. p . . 0 11 004 0- P 0 (D ';-3
00
1-' a) H H 0 1.-,) 1-"
131. 'I:1ct- c+ 1:3-R. P 1A7) H. 8rt- 1-1 0
P, V" c, sp.. co ct-
g 0 12 p.. E.t. p.. o 0o cr c) F114,1:1 (D g 0 bi'
I- ()04 H)H) 04 0 (1) (D '1 c+ C+ U) ...1
'C:i ct- P rn cn 1-3 I-I) 0 f.L.:0 1-1 (D
a) 0-1 0 H. 0 0 0 ri 011 a) P.. (+ 0) (+ l 0 (D 01:1
O *---.. 04 t+ 1.-i' CI- 1-3 rS coH. N o CD CD 0 :7' t-1-0) 0 11 0 0 0 11 0) 11ct- P) 1.-13 0 En 11 0 CD
(D P a ' r4 0 (D .l" 1---1 k VICD 0 1-I 1-' 31 (D -'' cl)
1-x 0 0 I-I0 CD P. P 0 0 tic+ .1 0 0' 0 11 0- p
I-1* Hi 1.-4 0 0 P a) 1-s 0O a) o 0°a
c-1- I-I) Cl) Oq5 0 Oq 4 co Oa0000 P ct- a) 0' 11 P (1-
0- 0' I--,..0 0". CD 0 11 :5-.(D P 0 a) r 1-1) O. a)
U) 1-1 a) o 0crl.
o CD C.11 Cf' 11 0I-, c+ 0- LT' - 0 fr.
En CD I-I- P CD c+ 1.-13
H . 1-1; "0 0 0 P CD c+ a)H' 0 o p.. ...T. 1-.. ai ttrt. !-I ... z 0 ,-1z ct- (D c+ P ''Ci I-1* 0 CD
1-1, CD 1(i)l) te /MI Ic:Ii6 qtn (1)
CI' 0
0 H (D to ti 1- 0 CD C) M*--0 0 17 P 0 0) 0 0
+ (DF0 0 0 1-1
1-3 1-s cI' 0 0c+ 0 0 Ht3 1-13 a) 5 0
N 0 I-13 faa 0 0' p) cm
fa: a) 0LIP., . tiA) 0 cl) IJ. co Pa' 11 00 0 cn (-I. co 0 1-$
ct- c1- 1-1* tzi CD ct- 01P.
1-1
I a) P 0' r:" c1- 0 c1'O fl) 1
1-h00-
Hoq0
I
0c+ 1-ci
a)
ct.a)P.,
0 0-o0 N.
t+0O
A)1
a)
Co 1-.1)
0
CD
010Co
0ct.
(D
0toCD
t.17'
P3et
i.H
or'
0"t<:
0
1-1:3
CD
Vii.
Cncr
14'Cr1
rr
C+
F-.))
rsPa
hh
11)
to
ri
cory.tD
To
¶ am* timid Me NMI WOW
133 H. c+H.Sal 'jl; ,t(3 to H. 110 (D
P 04 5 c1.0q c-1- H,P., 0- o 04 0 I-J 1-1. A) CD
1- (-I- 1-1 0 0 0 cf. w 11A) o 0" a) co pa040 0 CD Co c+ 11 11)
O P H. 0 IV
Cl 0 I-1 )1) a, 0 (t) (1) 1.1P tD cr (D 0) P U)
P 1-,,0 t<1 1ri CD 0
ti I-4 0 0 11 rs (I) ct-O 0 I.J '7.5 0:1 a. 11 a)0 a) co 1-4 (0 Cs 1.1 tD inw SL 1-1 c+ CO 171 et 0c-t- 0 0 CD CD I.J. 1-1,) C4 c+I'' H) :3 1-6 ('I' N 11 (DO t+ 0) H. 4/ti (0
tS ,-+ cP 0 Co A) Cr st)P IJ cl- N It, (I)1 --1 11 a) 14 a) & ()
A)Oq 1-1
cPtil
1-1 l 11. .0 00 01 (1) c
c+ to ti <1 c+ 1-1 0CD H. p 4 o o c.)
rs (3 P3 11 0 0 H/-0 Ott H c) 0 0+1 co c+ CD 0 0' I C)
CD al Cf. 0 ..7)- ",-.1 1.1 H. py
(7)11 A2 AFL ft ,:t fs3 cto
o 1.4 Co a) CD a)0 11 o I-I' Pa
CD I 01:1 0 cP II 0 (1) c+0 I -1 0
cD ,d c) 41' )..,. 0
cf. I'd 0 0 :4 ctCD P I-6 0 11/-11 H 0 c+ CD 1-4,
0' CD 1-1 CD Pa 0' (D0 t1 01c+0 04 P Oct H
(3 CD 1-12 0 0 a)(D A) cf.
C) Cl) c7' H I-4 co(0 CD (I) Cl) 0 c+t.4 P
1-.4 0 p..co 0
cn 0 11 " Mr$
(D (D 0 c+ n'so Ti) Cl/ :7)"0 CD (D 1-'
rn pa0)
1-4I-4 CD H)0 a) td cn W. I-4fP-II-. CD En I-1 0 rs.
Pa a) c+(D
A) (DCl) 04 I
thct" cI.P..
a) 0Pa
O .-1 rAH.
t+fa, 0
1-#3 C+1-4
(D 4() "0 0 0 lb
to tU 1.3
P.co 0O 01-4) CI* 0L-S
ig a) :5 0 0P 0c) 1 0 I-1)H 0 'c$ 0 0tv H to 1.1
1.1.J' CD rn cr ;.1
Cl) ri) t,. CD C)
'(111 rt.'', *1). Z.C.-441 1(nHro U)
1.91 LI' iTOt) .+ 00 0 0 0
0 A) ,1 P,cDo
rFo L-3
0 0Ij.
r.T. 0 0 at)a)
c+(,) u.
111 .r ta"".P.
31/4-I*
81 CPA -1.)1
A)(D
co
I.J. nI)
a) 11(
F -1, 0)0 0 Oct 0"t1
°c.0(.41. 11.-";:: 1.04; ct:4). 01;:j
0114 1,C1?,
N (D 0'0 O. al(.4-
.3
5 11oi1t<1
O H) YIS
H) CI. CD
1-4 0 11N o 1-.)
1-71J 0 0o I-1 oo H
En 11 0 to"d
ri)trlig
1.1
I
toI
& H.0 0 Ot)N I-J
ti) i) rnCr 0
r.
1-4) "Z.;
(DH) criC+ CO)
PCS 0I.
+1.4
I-J,1.4)1-4)
r$(0
r)
ro
HA)
COcn
H-4)
1.0
CD P.p,+
0)c
Cr N.0)
ht?
cifC')O 0
C+
0 POP.. 0
I1
14.C) Co
)-ti1.1
0tti
(11
Ti)
riUI
(3
ti0
0
O 0 '3" 0C)*. 14,
1C)). cnct. I-I )CD 0 H.
0cn I-1ct) Ott IV Pa
P (D rn
7' nn ibn
0
r71 1
1't C).
O a) .1 04'1 P..O 0
'7,1 0 Crs0u el)
I
lc/ Pt. I-1)
lc 1)) Cp'
1J I-J Pa.3 0
CM 1-1.Al 0 0
::13- )1:
Cl" C)rt (I) 1.0
ti CD
CD
N (1)
:r .1 (000: II) ;.1
0 P. 0.1r)" c) 0CD 0 A) co
rt-ct. (C,
Ha) A) 1+
I-4 0c+ 0 44 0r10 ctPa A) 0' c+
tf/
rA 0 CPPIO
!J 1 -D 1-h CP
CD I-1 CAI c+0 04 CD A) Cri-4))Q u) (n
(D D)40:3 "I 0 -3)
11) CD la1;111
C) N0 , 1-1. 1:d
ct) fl) r. (t) C')
Co r) r1 1 0to (+ to in CD ID
1(1)
cl 0 c7" I-" Pa a Sa.O.
1.,aCI! I1111,
I 11
fp' 4,1 (4 101'1 I
Clr t.$11) :11.1 II 4,14 ;1?' I
17' Cl' 0* (1) P, 1111) '-,4 P. S. I)sa., cf. vt)
r..1" (0"1( (71' CI 111 ii t:"13 "5 0 (1) ,!'t(11C) CI 1:4;° cro Pa.r.i P, :1clia) crui) ito iv) 'ttlti
u) ;I), 1.1it) "4
14.
c(a)1('t.*Iti tIrtiA)): tcprlL.111:
1.41
A) H'I) C) P. tort: .41
CO
0 t.... (1 r,CD1.
19. 4.tib 1-1)4)
4.) 1:4
Oci '4 0'00
(311
0 (1114' nc;)
U)ti rfl) I-c; ,1 ;1.)) Iv;
F; (D.$ ro }cot: ..r2)
o el. a) rn A) 0CT, CD Icf,* ) rf-s1
C+ t "0.3
#34 CD 0 04 0CD it) 0 13
(t)0. es. tz"
04 a)a) P.
academic emphasis as is m:ght be relai-ei tc persistence in a unlver-
sity by a sLden7 ,,teens tc be a vital area for investigaticn br3cause of
the planned non-olulloation educati:Ylai effort in each of the univer-
sities wil'cla p=.rt.'ci.cted in this study.
The relat:_cn.Ehip cf being unAe-i4ed =boa:. an educational major,
vocaticrt,l_ choize. cr a vocaticnal role -7-efe-er.f-e
a university seems tc merit continued research by each of the institu-tions whioh parttoipated in the study, Ea -..'h institution should attempt
to discern if being undecided about an educational major and vocationalchoice favors persiT-tenoe among male students but not among female stu-
dents, The results of such an investigation would have definite impli-cations for the development of academic advising and educational/voca-tional counseling for entering students on each of the campuses.
Differences I= Persisting and Non-PersisgStudents on theBasis of Educational Flans. Male and female persisting and non-persist-ing students on all campuses were compared on the basis of their educa-tional plans. Educational plans were defined as the anticipated educa-tional degree to be obtained,
There seemed to be fewer male persisting students than antici-pated who aspired to the receipt of the bachelor's degree but more non-persisting male students than expected who planned on the completion ofthe requirements for this degree. Persisting male students tended tobe observed less frequently than expected among those students who didnot anticipate the completion of the bachelor's degree, On the otherhand, the male non-persisting student appeared more often than expectedindicating that his educational plans included college but not the com-pletion of the bacheicr's degree.
The majority of the female students seemed to anticipate thecompletion of the bachelor's degree with the next greatest number ofstudents being found in the categories of less than a college degreeor the master's degree program, There appeared to be fewer femalestudents than expected who indicated that they did not plan on com-pleting their college program. On the other hand, there seemed to bemore female non-persisting students than expected who revealed thatthey did not antJ.cipate completing the four year program,
In general, persisting students seemed to anticipate the com-pletion of the four years within any of the fi=re institutions investi-gated as well as holding aspirations for graduate study. Male and fe-male students who dad not persist because of academic reasons appearedto anticipate their non-persistence since they reflected that they ex-pected to attend college but did riot aspire to the completion of thefour years. Furthermore, very few of the male and female academic non-persistIng students held the master's degree as an educational goal.The male and female students who did not persist because of non-academicreasons tended to reflect slightly higher educational aspirations sincethey appeared to be more likely to aspire to the master's degree thanthe academic non-per sisters. However, the results seemed to indicatethat such students may have serious questions about their persisting
108
"1",Tw,'"70, r Trrrrrr,
-WIWI I 11.111 UNA Noma lima 46.4
ct 1,, ctCD 16 0 0 P." 0
ct. 4 P.. (-t. o -o:i 1-.) o otla) i-I. 1-1 obd
(-1.. 0 0 a) 1- 00' 1-1 a) a)0 a) 5 0
::r cn 0 ib 0.5 q o cl. A., lc/
fiu P: cdi-J. I-I 0.11 CD to (D 1-.1 (D
co11 r4 )-1 z cnil Pi 0 0 0 P.. a) 1-4) cn
;LI- 0
CD (X) 11:1 P1 Ct. CI' CO 1-1) 1-, 0o cr to 0 0 0-1 1-5. c+ Id v.' l'n 0 0 ct I 1-I)Po wed 000M 00)00' I-3 r+ Pa H) 0' hi t.
1-1 Pa }j4 CO A 11 0 0 AJ (4. 11 0 0" 0 r:s (D CD C.) F"P., tJ^ 1 cr Cn CD 0 rt: a) 0 DI (D P. ,:+ )zi tt 1: .0" by
0 CD 1-'' a)c+ . Q.
p g)i .,0 S.", 4, ti11-1. 117!1 11 CD 0 a) cn 0 1-4)0 ,{9..0 a:. 0 a) to co Di tri' P..
(D :i pi Ii ri :.-$ a)(4- t-J. cn v.: cn q PI0 0 .1-1 0 11 0 IS 1 ci 0 Ft 1 CD c-1 0 0(D 0 1." r.1 (D r) 'd .1,' Lt. 0 0 ,..+3 co )1 i Is ..1-<
R'(D (D 1-1 cr Cr. 5 0 0 0 0- e I a.rt. .74' 0 ct- 0' )-3 VI 0 0 H- 0 ci cD I./ c) 0
O[1) t+ 0 (D t:T. 0 0 P. :- " 'II
74. ;11 ri g ;.1 I;t: I °I4cr 0' 0 V LP)II 11 0 Q. to e+ C) a,. a) v. 1-t
Q.r... t.,'"v" CD 0 CD 0 0 11>1-' A) 0 ct 0 ...--r CD Q. DI ca. u) .-+ IA I.-, 0 5
0 4.+ c.n a) 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI4?) 0 P,. 0 P..COsf-' P.. I-4) 1-4) ,s.4,.. Cl) 1-4) gill (D 00 Ft Cn 1--k
1 5 1.:1 cmwl 0 0 CD cr CD Cr tj' drtc+ 0 11 1,-). rn 0 0 4 5 r-1. rit '5.H (D cr cr ,071 cr5 a) 0 i3.: o- CD ti' ri-
til ib LI 0 ib tJ 11 & ::$'1-1) p. tu H) gl P-ri1,11. H IA* cl, (t)
iii 1-' ct' i) :7.1
CD 0t01 IJ H) (D (1) tr. (D 0 03 C3 0 C) 0 m. ..$0 '.:'S CD ri P) 1' I. /1 413 P$ Z.1 0. 'A:4 0 CA (D 4 CA Cu Z 11 0 0 et. CO ',..1 c-t . 1J'
o<1 cn I-I o - n,1 P., (D 1-, 0' 0 cr cr to 0 DIc+ cr A) Il tn ri 0 0 1-1) tb 41 0 ''S t+0 0 0-. h:::I 1"" :I' t'S .N 0 (n 0 cli P.. 0 1-1'i-- 0 Pi 116 Cla 0 (1) 70 0 Ocl 0 CD I 6 0 00 c+ (D c- cr 1-1 CI 0' 'I CD P. A) (D 0 Ft\ID 1J" 0 0' Cn DI 0 P. (D (D 0 0 H 0 .I. Ft ct' H all0 o 0 H. 0- g fa, 0 al 0. 5 a) 0 0 m a) 0" 0)0 to cn ',..1 cn 0 0 CD 0 5 0 1.-,. H) (A 1.1 0 r..30 a) .-1. c+ Pi 0 t-I' fa,H 4 0 0 0 ti
to cs 0 0 "0 0 0" 0"r-,-"ri 0. 0 0 11) 0 a) to v.: 5 -s 0 0 0 0 lb cD Z
fi.:0 t-1 0 0 (4- c-.1. ;:,34 0 o
CD11 V M 0"Di 0 0 0 "0 0 Cr. I.I. p, Cs CO I-1, 0 :..1)1 0 HD 5-.3 0 vi) (D P t',"4' (/) 0 i
11 0 0 DI 0(D CD
c+ 0 0 P, 1-1 ,-1' pl. M., Pa 1.4; 1T};a P.. 0 0' ID I '..--1 ta 1 k. . c-I" o 0 0 117.; '-TIci 0 0 11 klFt' 5 cn 0 I-#) 0 0 8 & ri v..... ....4 r., 114 d H) 0 .$
P. 3c1 P 0 0 II cl)0 0 I-I 0 0 0 '-i I 0 1-1 5 nq :1- as 0 F" 14'0 P, PJ a), V) 0 .,+ 0' H DI 0 .__"-11 0- M COCD (D ID 0 H 0 0 $1.) CD c-t (-I. P.) 0 0 A) 0 e+0 /1 H it 1-1) CO A) 0 0 ::: 0 1-1 0 V1 0 1-1'
(D A) 0 1-'' (D a) 7t' a. e.e ott (1. Cl. Pt gl. o aq11 ts 0 0 a) Pa Oct0 A. o cti
0 0 H. LD 0 o (Dc+ 0 0 0$
0 04 OR0 li 5 c+ 0 0 OR el P.s 0 II ...+ O s o 0 CI)H4 /-13 Cr $13 c.. P. 0 .0 (D Pa (D M 0 1:11 cl F-1) 0 1.0 P (D LI. P., (D 1-1) 1-1) (D I Pa VI 0
p. Pl. C.) (to 0 0 't H I-J 4 0* 'd a) Ila A,0 1-.. 1-s 0 f.ii a) a) Pt CD tr 0 cr 0 1'0 (Dtl cr V, c+ 0 1c-r A) 0 ti 0 il Is cr A) CD 00 0 r. CO A) I-.1 Di rt. (D p U) 0 P'' fl. FS crP, 0 0. CD 0 (D ib l'`" II II 0 (I) (f)0 0 t-i UI 0. Ft' ','S Ia. cr. I-I) 0 114) 0 0 5 P.1 0.' 0". 0"CCD 0 0 to cn 0 CD 80 0 0 a) 0 c+ I
+ a) his cn 01-.1* 0 cl*P. En Ori 0 P 'I a)0 (D M 0 I cr 11 el 4)11 Orn V c+
CD P, 0' 0 0" Ota 0"I a)
1-s F-J"c:I I-' II 0 Ota Ila & 4 5 :,- (-I- Pu I-1 0- Ila 0. u) "1:1 0- 5 00 1.1. H 0 (D 0 0 0 I-J iv' Pa H I" I. 0 CD 0 Ip" pa t$ (D 0 CD C.) 13" A)0 0 (D Ocl 1-1 Vs 0 P) 0 11' C.- (I 0 c+ II 4 a) 11 ts 1 CD tt CD 0)
::5" 3" .1 C) (I)
0 tk) 1-$ H 0 il fl: i...''. l's 1-.-1(71 (Vs tilv f.D..: 4 rti 0 (14 CD c1 .1*) ,')
CD Cl) i,), 0' c+ Cn CD 0 Pa FS 4 ti II I-. 11 0 A! W. 0 0to pi 0 i-3, 1-,, 5 * f.$1, H
...kir ,.s..*: tZ51 ccno g colt 0 Pei 1. P) 1-4) CD si rn a)
0.1:I.1...1 1.., t.,) 0 til c) 0I.-, :....: 0 tl o' or o
0_ 1-4,
«3' 1443 tI 11) 'A 1 t'S .3'
Li.C) X:
H)):a...,. rst- ,",ti' ti
r+ LZ" c-f 11.% cii H pi 0 0.
CD let '.,1-0" r:).. (1) 0 1.... it)1.7' 0 ,rf 0 CD C` i" ti
I-.
I:::
: le
0 rt fly) a), .1 14. 1(71. I ..,D5
(1) c0t. pn 47+ t.03 (DP" 01-1' 1.4. (., ..lb tn..1 ,;,' 0 0
0 '1 to m u)?I.
5 1-0) Pe c+ e ru 0.- m (I) At; 0
rt. 0. 0. 0' PiPc:I "I
(Cl-4-1 (1.) CD 11 1-1 rt Hr,1
'014, 11)..1, '4),,,i 19, 'a .7t- li, ,) ,D o
0 0.. cr cr 0 Ps ct et* P-. 0)
H Cl.i..., i. ri) 0 t oe tti
44 F...4 1:::/ ) 'PI 41 iD i o '1"
) I i. 1
1 41 'r i) 1..4
!:' lc.)
..%
';
0.. ,. 1 ..
,A,
0., ,,, , 13.)
:3 1,', ',oil
1 .L 0 4
...4,' :1,..
Ct
.... r.
(I) On P 'i 4) irs
..t. PI CD
,0 .
:-.f. er, 5-1,..,ct t."." e,
0 c) (D so I-1 A) .4 1 't111))
r..01 1.41.--1 1.0 .9 ..--t" .4 1 ' it. II ',3 rn .4
ii 1(1 14
(Dc+ P-0
.11 i....4 1,,,..,
) '
0 Ft) l. ...? (I) ,... .1 a,p., 1..1 ...el a, 1.... r.; 0- 1...., ea l.., o,
alLi, ..i,
.,...q. ti 0 c.i. /13 0.,4 :s' a) *4 az Cri: rill.): l'..311 mir.t.) I 'II,.
f,I.;
t!'fil-..'' 1:7-
al r. ,,
1:).r. 0. Li :1)
.,..s. s. it rt1 (D cl I I. tr. 0 04rA nci e), z" 11 t.11 cr I' CD Cl 11 Cr NI (Is ° C:) ;I ei 0.. ,..-) 11"1
,r, 11 :% (0 1
to 4*)
CD r.s. I.; 0 0 0 (D 0 c,D P Ps.,,,
-.",,)
rc) 0
1')iv ;
- red.. rfin rot 14) Pt 1--, 0' 1.4 0 , 1' W, Li ri
ttic" 11 A " H (IC"' H '17141. a),)./4 tl,'"4' l'111., 4.::i; 1:P1 tIt17' t%*ti effi P'
[ i1,
U'cols.,
1.-:-11 e: :'::' CD n' t: :),0 r.s (it Cl.0.. P., re tr (D AS 0 CD rt.I g: :5 r., 1--1 0 H. 1... ry m st) 6 115 t li%,--. p) t) r.r4 ) CD ti u., RBI ct 1..I. IJ. rt. 1-.1. 1'1' Ila 1,...)" ri ;1: AI t.$,4) tr,t+; 09
:i:4, 1.1. ,.. I I.
t t.
0 H 1-4) 0 0 q:f (Je. 3 cn .4 0 to 00 Io 0 1.1 t$
0
0 ri.
tji cli:1) 4'0,:li
sl4 4
I . 0 , 114
U) it: 'll:
1%
0 0 a'In 0I-I a, -. A) er 0
Vil / .1CA li
/II1'0 o 0 0 1
-4,. 4 ..r1 1.4) c.t.. 1.4) 0.. P.P.) 1 .D `,,v*
-.tCD
r::1
cot p i 0 0 p" o 1.11 4 0 O 1 0 0 (it ti '.4., ot- 4 1 '' 0 11. 1 -.4., ,..t 0 1-1 1.1, I-4) C' rs %...tots 0 i (..1' i P. 0 ,*3 4** rt '44' ::,-7
,i,1'
11) p.. '1 Oq 0 cil l..4) 0 H. 1 I Cr i'l *r.) i...ie 0 0 "(j I-.. 0 ?) a 1)A
(CTI14
4 1.1) LT oft
0 Ot ts P
0 Ii 1...1 fl) il CD 1/ ,.1 ts" 0 MI 0 0 r..1 0 : 0. 1. ' 0 01 01.-1 in
H p., P$ I'S tl ri 0 c) qt '11 1-1 I'd '1 I'D
0 .4' 14) I "g [I'se; 11,,
i.'t' CD 17) 0 0 cri 5-.) 0 D.t 1 it et D 0 .4. oti 0 al0 0 ws 1--1 E. o, trt I.-41 0 I-. 11 0 t..1 (.1 ,,,t t.r. ..1u, :.f.. A, l4)
?..t. P.:i4.(i'ti LI to () DI (.4. Cr ,,-.1-.1.1 0 0 0 ,D 1.- cn it 0. .1 at +4)
1. 9 p, c.). 0 (A It) o 0 :1.. i,.. 1:3" ,) u. 0 ti) . % ,r) I ..
.I. I..;
0 co 0 1., i...rt. (-: r.:T. Cr 1.1 rs 0 I,' CD 1- -' C) I "v" P' 0, ''..1
° 4 a) i'f it°71,t;1:;,,, P 0 0 .- ao ri. II' .*IA ct cr,
)-, D.
11
0.r:
0 0 ..0 I-v.Ocl } 0 %) 0 0 1 ...1+7, 1...0.1 C1c1 .,..10 10-. ;::sH"
i...1 rl .10., -,4 .1
0 Co P.: (D c+ P4 Co ;1%4 Orl ti A5 rA 0' I P3 U 0 Ito
H) (11 H. A4 4,,) ,,. I. r 11 C4' t'4' I-";At 1-3 CD l'i' ill LI:
ryi i.-1 ct- p- CDtr g :S 2 " 2, a g
51CI
p w 5, al 5 rgi. 1'1: ;:' ',:41,, ;11),,, `ii. !: mFD41,-.1 co to '"1
s.0 0(D 'rl5'j .1)
CD H P 1-1' 0 Pa °(-1 1-1. (1)0
I -"cr C°D rI art! 41 f1 U) r''pa ca, co 5 It- Hi
P. 51 %-i- 0- 15.) Fa. 0 .41 CD ri., c7. 1,.".:3 r.* '1
g) co u) U) u) 0 ch cD Ca a) I- 1-4) I.4 (I) 0 0 0 / H. mI-I Cr ) tri 1J' CD (D c+ IA 'I to 0r+ (D (+ K:. RI 61. MCI (D Ir+1 linj. Ifs ',7' al 0 Ii 0 P.1-1) (3 0 .'4'CD P' Cr 1-#, 0 to p, 1-1. "c1 0 Cl . cD .-t- c1. Oct ct" 0 }1 u) in e)11 CD (1) 1--.1
cr) 1.1.cr c.t. o (0) 11-1! 0 r) 8- est. 0-. p p. (a 0 ..-s (1.k.
TH1
13 2., %.,.1 6,a)
0 r 6 P 0 t)
Cr 0'0 (1)0
c+ $15 '1 r+ P- qi II ID 4,1*113 cl' 0 CA
I 1 I t.11 CD LA 0*CD $3.
1 rd..0 (40 WI I
1:111
1-1 $.4
f
(0 (f)bl) 6.,
(1.1 0 tat) 4.4 (1) ).4i 1 '1-4 4) 0 $.,1 (.)112 to $.4 H
,g:CU 1(1
P0 1) 4t2( () 110 14 .1-
cci0
4 r srW t)I:i4.
9 (1) ell 0 i.-0.: '20 4
)."1' 1-1 ,0 0,1 A) 0 X:
0 0 ..14 u) 0 .1-1;114 ; U1 (1.1 'T1
..:iC.i I.
1 I, a)u .1:1 14 (0
.174 (I) I.L.; , .14;. . CI
4d 11) ;J.: ,.1 (I'x,lo F., (I) 4.4 cl,s., (I) CZ Ts a) 0)NI 1)0 I ci ..,
r 00) I.; 4) 0%.ri it/ ,, ).:: 41 $1,,,3 Ai ). 4-s p1.1 .1 C. U) (,I ,i-.1 to 4.1i;,., I. LI:(1) 1-1" t 1 t) 11 4.1
, i ,t) ,,,,! cli r .f...1
W 0,1 r- I 0 4.)El .k t) :t:0 k A : li) 44
AL, Pi 01 .1.1 il (',1
$.4 P ,C1 011).) $:4
6 1;1 1. I gl1.1: +, co v., cu r11' .14 gi (ci i'l 4)r 1 ,. 0
1:
0.4 (1).11, 1,)1 4 r 1
I)) 4) 1-1 ca.4 ),-..: :?.. 1.4 al El: t 'I (t. V t:
t ii, 1 1 i 1.,,, t):1 It ......1 igi. i., 0.,, , 1
;11 CO a) ii) 3.1(I) W 01 0 I-1I.) III $,.: :.- 9
"it , i) ( j 4 4g 4) r: $i
A X:4
.1 I Ili 0 0.1N51
*r! Ita t/) lil 11 El
(1)
).4 'tS a) it +16-1 $:.: 1:1 0
,-.) 0 0 asti) .1.3 r) 1.1 F .1.)
11 0 co qi 0 4)U (11 (0 e.,) 0 F.
oalPI :3 .1-1 a) 00 (11 ,r; ,g1 rd 0 4)pi C) c.) .1-) (1) 3 rd
tar) rd la) a)
1 rcS -) i f(4.3 rd et ,,o, in it 0 1
')1 P 0 0 4-.1 a) Pi TS ,e1 co0 0 f..) 1..)
c 4) A.1
0, R. 04-I 4) r- I 0 C) l
U) I. 0) H M .111 id.3 U) .1.1
,CU1 (11q a) 4-i E-1 ,,,, 0 0 +) 0 43
(1) C)4-i
0 r011 C.: 03 .r-1'CI 0 .0. 4)AS CD
al a) cr)s 0 0 0 1.1 a) $1,
4.) 1.1 V 4) In +3 di (0 ()) a)V4 (1) 0 11) rlitan 4-i 0 (I) 91 .4.1 +)
c*-) g ..1 rd Cf"1 .4 '1.14 id to coEl .i.).5 d ..0 41 (l) 0 0 . 1.-1 4
4.) tl) If.1 1'4 0) cil 0. o Q1in 4) r-1 a) 1.1) ,.'i.11 C: 1-1 A./ in ea t..) S-4 rycra iNi 0 :3 (11 C) u a) .,
--i. .1S. 1 c.) ;,1 a) 0.4 f.( a) 0.co , -: r..1 140 14 a) ,.0 .4.) 4) I'd
rig
h.1 0) a) (0 .,C1 0.... et-1 0
g4 g 0 r-IC)
1 E.-4 'PO E-1(1) CD . r'l1 .r1
0 D0 1.) CI 0) 'IA (1) ..C) r--1VI .11 0 U ,.C1 6 U) b0
D,1 0 4.) QJ A.t r, o 0,ti 'CS 0 a) a) .1.) ,..s.:j
5414i)4
10..1 .10-1 iigi r(i pi Atilrd
I%
tl) (4 ,CI W 0 OS 4) rdDIi.: 1)14
1..;..,-... .14 twit) .it:i .1..) tar 4(1:,'
.r'
ID i.3 g 0) tl(4 i4? ( ::: $4 0 . 1 Ai 1))ul a) 4.) a) g V) Pi Pi(1 .4 10 U) l':.:1 rai :1 Cck
,
;al
..(1a 1-1 .ri r1
4 la DI 41 V) i. 0A4A) Fi 01 gl 0 T1 PI A"
15.-: 0 .a) .. 0J Al a) 4Q1 a, '4.. e') 0 40 -C.: XI(0 () 1 ID 4 .) 4.1 (0 41 -)VI t'.I :7,1 4) 11 :z.
I r ,:: (I) .ii .c: 1 I: !LI-,-i! 1 c 0 A:4 40 PA il:f g
C. ti a i 0 01), 43i C.: :0 lb "rd ca In '00 Co A TS Al 1 II! A.4 :.1C) 0) .0! 0 4,- 51 (t) I)g 4I 4,1 .1. ` AI, C? . 'I trP U)0) 1-4 I) V. (a () (1) 51$ i (I) t.1 DO I: 0 .8 ..0 bo0 ,..1 .4..) 1.4 ..c., to Pi44 H V) .) Iti 4.4 ID ta
c:-.1 00 .r61 0113 Cl) 1-1i .,..1. ) .DI r-1
r.ti 'A i 0 C.) qi th rl 1-14-( 0 rii a) g ,g; o a) (a cl0 r,),,,,1 U) (.1 4. 3 eCi 'P $.1 ..C.
) DO to Lo 4-"g in P4 4.)Irl P.4), 0.1 i 0 0 P 0 .0 I- I 0M 0 M 4-I Z a-4 r-I gII PD °
0000 4)-P I'd V) A4 2 4
rd
N)
et-Lp.i o )w
a) .11a) co La
7/ct $(1)1
.p0a) rdra
04.)H VJ F44 .) ri
1 1 AV-1 24rf4. 1P4
I.0
trIto
U)
Aai
Sr $.1rdVI 0116 4) S'g a)
1.0 a)
4)rel Tit
.re-i
w t
V.4 "r).44 4:
(3.t1
(1)
.1S1 Stii*
(1)(1.1
C.) 7.4 0)(1.) ;.1
<4 0.CI'
4-10
rd
rd
U)4.)
4-)
4)$4
4-)U)
0
rCIX.41
(1) pit
r00 0)LA 0gga)0a) (.1
Intl) go:11
Al A .1 000)1404) ID A.1
r ti4) '0 P
rr8 463
C).3
it. 1 a) A
1)0 br-04 °
0111
a).L1e oil C)
41 4)(1i
Po: V,: t.t11
:rtrl:t(11)14:11):11)
I'd;113)(P13141
r-1 .t
:14 V)0
0ID A1:11 F4
I U)H
4-)F4 0 U)
(1) et--1:14 ic:1
g1 .lerjt
g Pio g .r1 TS
rI°rd a)
Ca 4-)D
0)bf) .1 4.) .7i
4)V1-1.1 F.43) CD1 VA° 111
a) top., a)
14' .4:4 P1 Lari -3F)i
t>4 +30) 3 H4 .1-1 C)
tr)
FTi
4:1N
c)
43 $..) 1
cti a E1 0.r.: ,3
0
a0 u1g:
10 jT i *r-1
ir.
ill (1) $,(1.4)
A:
1)11
(Libe(1)
0: rd40 1-'1J (1),
4-1 (I) 10C
0)rCl C)
(11 44.)F-ra og
0) .1..) cdU)
g Hcd ty) 4.)
a). 1-)
Q) AI,r)
A a) +3 0)
bo
.41
: 1 .0 gelH
tr) rla) t F.1to to o
4-) HOti-I +)
ckt grn ca0a)
:4D 4...11 rU) Tr) .H
4) 0,C3 .ri
:.0 4: Pi (aU)
jS g0 4-)
.19 rdtri (a
43t-ks
a)
t(1) ctig1 .40:4)
P-4 r'1 4s)
4)
u).1 rd
1.10
a)
4'Atf-4
(1)
CH0
00 .1.4A4 4cd 0
-)
gi0 .r-I
a)F-1
trt
cti
4-)
$.at1
140C)
a)
F-4
as
a)rdIDa))14
-1
O
4-)
cH
U)) ros:DF4
ai U .4-3srl.4-) $4 a)
oa)
'U) .r-1 .H° -Pr°
1:240 w$4 >~ 4-1
.1-1 ;04:r0 F4 0T4 ./.4
a.rI4
4-1 4-) VI cd
0° a) 4z31 111(1)
C) 0 0 4.:"Sr{ rd A 1.11.+, 4 0 .4-)
EQ) $.1
0 oei-I U1
4-)4C) ..) .41
0 0 0)Is +3 F4
V.1 0 0U) 3 4-10
.1 1-10 -) eri
q.': 74.7e
H rl(1) 4.3.1 cd
II) C) s.11
.r9 Aa) 1-'1
4-1 rclo 5.94-1 1f) orlXI 0 (0
a) Id(1) 4:44 Cf)
ta 0 4-) Ul
Q11 .2 +Ca) g 5:1C)c) U rg 0 4)
Xt
H -P 4-1 Idri
F.t cti CO
(1)
at 0 4-)O
erl
a)
.r1a)A 0r) 10.4
0 Hco
411 +9 .49 qi C)
04-)
co
1d
0
cd
.r I4-)
.Cl.U)
O
O4)-1
0A
0r14-)
taf)H4-)
a)
(1) in M I m
u)(1) e) .V) 1 ci0 0 L P (0 $4g 0 Pi fal el-I a) Cil0 $4 P (11 110 to pi (a0 A- TS g +) ctiu) r 0 0 ..-t g .L-3 H
4-) 4-1 P-( 4: 4: 0 0 0Z .1-1 H o cti u) TS g(1) r0 r-I ..g 0 r-I 140
TS cd -1 TS 10 4-) rd p4.)
E
-P0 0 0 A-I 0
(xi F4 to :11 4s)
Cl') ai 0 to 14 CZ) c4
b .1-1C) Ill VI 0 F4 tr1Q...2 rit.r9
4-1 -P WI -5, 2 I r,.. ctri .. ,..... 0 F4
+3 (1) 4°0 qa21 140\1 rd tg)
F.uli US -Pro .rig 4-30 .,a) el-10 0a) oo.it-t4 rI rig +.) 1-4
a) .P 0 w p., rgP . t b0 ( 1 1 Pt U oLogom
r-1 10 A-4 0 0 cd cti btO
TS 10
O VI ri rdca ; .45)A-a rii(n(Q11 :45: :.40)o ct ..4-3.,1
bo
g b0 F4 H 4-)cd g 43), 0 0 V) 0
.14 0 11) H 0 4-) EDb0 .P 1 A 4-) r-I AI 0 0
.F.1 cd 0 ton za) rcL et-L rcia) rg0 04-) TS 0 T1 rd 0
tra tr) VI 0 -4-) t4)rtib1-1 F4 TS -P 4:= -P cb 31
U) t-D 0 11 111 0 Cd 0S-1 ct A 0 F4 Ul0 H D.0 'net rd P,) ctila, 0 110 q-I Z P cti 0. 00 Z 0 r1 .4-' t-t CI) F.4
4.4yam,)
g.i 'rib A .1-1 4-1
0 a) rrito .,-.1 0a) = P-I 2 e" 1 co 80 .4.) .4.3 F_I ctiz thi tiO $4 0 0 00 0 0 4-i 0 ID 4 44F4 0 0 ..5, c.7'. 110.4 -P 00 0) 14 \ PI
el-44-1 .r-I W rtil AQ) C \I a) CD.' Ul°.1-4 Cf) rd to ti-L g ;- oP
el-1it0OctiOtd
0 0 r0 4-3 Vag 0 alFt.-1 0 TS 0 0 ,K)
Ul A 0 CO in ..C1.1-1 re) 4.) -Pca Al
CDtt 0 u)
Di 0) g CD H 0 r-IIll I I3 0 P4 0 Ti Fxc U
MI ISM 1101 thimi 01.1 ifoinwo #461114411 Ffi."81" #1*.", tritamt ts.lt #111.01i /WM, .1.110 111.14 PIM, I", Slag 41.10
250 or fewer students while there were more of these academic non-persisting students tnan exuecnea whc graduated from classes of 250
students cr more.
The results seemed to _rdi:ate that students graduating from aclass of 250 or fewer students may be more likely to persist in one ofthe universities Investigated than students who graduated from classes
of 250 or more students. Also, if the student who graduated from aclass of 10C or fewer students did not persist, it seemed likely toexpect that his non-persistence was due tc non-academic reasons.
These 1.esults tend to snggAst that the s=ze of high school c lass
in which the student graduated may be a factor in terms of persistencewithin the five universities investigated. Each institution shouldconduct further investigation to discern the precise effect that thesize of high school graduating class might have with regard to per-sistence within the institution. Again, this study did not accountfor the possible influence of scholastic aptitude. There may be rea-
son to believe that the Institutions are attracting or selecting stu-dents from the larger high schools who rank in the lower levels ofscholastic aptitude and students from the smaller high schools whorank within the upper levels of academic potential. If this differ-ential attraction were valid, the findings within this investigationwould be better explained.
In summary, the objectives of this investigation were achieved.There is a diversity of characteristics among persisting and non-per-sisting students among campuses. These persisting and non-persistingstudents vary significantly from each other as do the campuses onwhich they are enrolled. The ACT data obtained on each student enter-ing each of the institutions as well as selected post-matriculationvariables seemed to differentiate among persisting and non-persistingstudents among campuses.
This investigation was initiated as an exploratory study toserve as an impetus to continued research in the area of educationaldevelopment of students. This goal will be met only in the futureand to the extent the cooperating institutions utildze the resultsfrom this investigation as guidelines for the development of hypothesesregarding their respective educational programs and the impact thesemight have on their students. The results of this investigation indi-cate there are significant differences among persisting and non-per-sisting students and if the institutions hope to effect rationally theattrition rate of their students as well as give explicit recognitionto individual differences among students and campuses, then continuedresearch is a necessity and not a luxury.
REFERENCES A RIBLTOGRATHY
1. Astin, Alexander W., "Some Characteristics of Student Bodies Enter-ing Hier-Ler Educational Institutions," Journal of Educational
Psychology-55:267-275, 1964.
2. Astin, Alexander Nr Who Goes Where To College? Science ResearchAssociates, Chicago, Ill., 125 pp., 1964.
3 Duncan D. R., "Multiple Range Test for Correlated and Hetero-scadistic Means," Biometrics 13:167-176, 1957.
4. Edwards, A. L., Experimental Design in Psychological Research,Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York; 1963.
Kauffman, J. F., "Student Personnel Services: Some Questions andRecommendations," Educational Record, Fall, 1964.
6. Knoell, Dorothy, "A Critical Review of Research on the CollegeDropout," The College Dropout and the Utilization of Talent,(Per non et al., ed.), Princeton Univ. Press, 1966.
7. McConnell, T. R., A General Pattern for American Public HigherEducation, The Carnegie Series in American Education, McGraw-Hill, 1962.
8. McConnell, T. R., "Diversification of American Higher Education:A Research Program," Educational Record 38:300-315, 1957.
9. Pervin, L. A., Reik, L. E., and Dalrymple, lir., The College Dro outand the Utilization of Talent, Princeton Univ. Press, 19 .
10. Summerskill, J., "Dropouts from College," The American College,(Sanford, ed.), Wiley, New York, pp, 627-657, 1962.
11. Tseng, M., "Multiple Comparisons Among Treatments," Department ofHuman Resources, University of West Virginia, 1967, mim.
112
Reprinted from The Educational Record, Fall 19":
(title of copyrighted work)
by Joseph F. Kauffman
(name of author)
American Council on Educationby permission of
(name of copyright owner)
Copyrighted 1964
(date)
Permission to rep- puce this copyrighted material has been granted by
American Council ft Education (copyright owner) to the Educa-
tional Research in';,rmation Center (ERIC) and to the organization oper-
ating under contract with the Office of Education to reproduce ERIC docu-
ments by means of microfiche or facsimile hard copy, but this right is
not conferred to any user of ERIC materials. Reproduction by users of
any copyrighted material contained in documents disseminated through
the ERIC system requires permission of the copyright owner.
is
.10
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESSPRINCETON NEW JERSEY 08540
June 4, 1968
Professor David L. CokerStudent AffairsWisconsin State UniversityStevens Point, Wisconsin 54481
THE COLLEGE DROPOUT & THE UTILIZATION OF TALENT, by Pervin, Reik & Delrymple,(Princeton University Press, 1966): quotation from pp. 64-65
We hereby grant you permission to reprint the above material in
a reaearch report, under grant from U.S. Department of Health, Education & Welfaras requested in your letter of
17 May 1968 without charge.
1. The credit line should include notice of author (and translator or editor), title,
publisher, and copyright. All information needed for credit line is given above
2. Rights herein granted shall not be construed to relate to any interior matter sherights to which are not controlled by the Princeton University Press.
3. This permission applies to only one edition of your publication and all retirintsof that edition in the same format. It will be necessary for you to apply for anew permission for any revised or enlarged editions, or for change from paterbackto hardcover or hardcover to paperback editions.
RE1' /kh
Sincerely,
\61Roy t. ThomasPermissions Manage r.
(TOP)
001
100
101
102
103
200
300
310
320
OE 6000 (REv. 9-60ERIC ACCESSION NO.
CLEARINGHOUSE.ACCESSIO N
OEPARTr.IF.NT OF IlEAL M. EDUCATION. AND WELFAREOFFICE OF EDUCATION
ERIC REPORT RESUME
RESuAlL DATE05 24-68
P.A. IS DOCUMENT COPYRIGHTED? YES
ERIC REPRODUCTION RELEASE? YES M4ONO
TITLE
DiversiZy of Intellective and Non-Intellective Characteristics Between
Persisting and Non-Persisting Students Among Campuses
PERSONAL AumoRts;
Coker, David L.
INSTITUTION SOURCE)Wisconsin State Universitr-Stevens Point
REPORT /SERIES NO.
ISOURCE CODE
OTHER SOURCE I SOURCE CODE
Consortium on Research Development
330 OTHER REPoRT I.O. 760-541-70-1007-06
340350400
500501
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
800
801
802
803804
805
806
807
808809
810811
812
8)3814815
816817
818819
820821
822
0 Tri EP. SOURCE SOURCE CODE
OTHER REPORT NO.
;AU D'L. DATE 5Apr 68 COr. TRACT /GRANT NUMBER OEC -3 -6 -062728 -2129PAGINATIOIJ. ETC.
112 pages
RETRIEVAL TER,As
College persistence
College dropout
T
IDENTIFIERS
ABsTRAcTrn purpose of the study-was to seek out the nature and extent of the diver-
sity of the characteristics of persisting and non-persisting students vithin and
among the various campuses of five state universities.
The total student sample (N = 7010) of the study consisted of the entire
freshman class of 1965-66 who were enrolled on the campuses of the five state uni-
rersities on a full-tine basis. The sample was stratified into persisting, academi
non-persisting, and non-academic non-persisting student categories for each of the
articipating campuses.The results indicated that the various sub-scales of the American College
Testing Program tended to discriminate between male and female and among persisting
and non-persisting students within as well as amorg campuses. Previous high school
schievenent tended to be a discriminate variable between male and fenale and among
persisting and non-persisting students within and among campuses. College achieve-
ment in terns of credits earned, credits attempted, and grade points achieved ap-
peared to differentiate male and female persisting and non-persisting students with
in and among campuses. There were significant differences revealed between male an
fer,ale persisting and non-persisting students on the basis of planned educational
major, vocational choice, vocational role preferences, educationd aspirations, nun
ber of changes in.acadenic major, place of college residence, and size of high
school graduating class.The results were discussed with regard to their implications for further
study of the persistence of the college student on the various campuses as well as
for the educational programs among the five state universities as these might be reto naulzterse